2020-2024 Budget Survey: Climate Emergency Bold Steps

Each year, the City is required to update and approve a financial plan for the upcoming five year period. This plan approves spending and identifies the funding sources for City operations and capital projects, and must be approved by May 15th of each year. We are currently in the capital planning phase of the process, with work on the operating plan coming in February/March 2020.

New Westminster City Council has recently declared a climate emergency and created a budget framework that prioritizes capital projects which support the City's Climate Action Seven Bold Steps. As part of this phase of the budget process, we want your input on the Seven Bold Steps to not only determine which Steps are most important to you but also ensure that the initiatives associated with each will help the City address the climate emergency response.

The New Westminster 2020-2024 financial plan community consultation includes several components - this online survey is just one of the many ways to get involved. Upcoming opportunities include a capital program workshop on January 9, 2020, and an open delegation at the January 13, 2020, Council meeting.

To learn more about ways to participate and have your say, please visit the Budget 2020 website. This first section gives you an overview of how City finances work, and where we are at.

The City’s Five-Year Financial Plan – both the capital and operating budgets – outlines where the City is prioritizing its efforts via its spending authority. The three main components of the financial plan are the City’s capital programs, the operating programs and reserves.

Staff have identified a budget of approximately $467M for capital spending 2020-2024. Of that, approximately $260M is related to projects that are a climate action response. In November 2019, City Council approved the Seven Bold Steps to address the climate emergency, and a framework to guide the development of the City's Financial Plan to ensure that our resources are allocated with a climate emergency lens. The next few pages give you an overview of the steps and their development and asks your input on each step. 1) Do you agree that this Bold Step (#1 – Carbon Free Corporation) supports the City's Climate Emergency Response? Respondents: 289

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 72.66% 210 No 21.11% 61 I do not have an opinion 6.23% 18 Total 100% 289

2) Do you have any comments related to this bold step? Respondents: 104

2) Do you have any comments related to this bold step? This is total fantasy and will have no effect on this so called emergency. Stop being radical far left Personal Information and try actually do things that improve the city and life for residents. It will add cost to living in the city. More tax, more user fees. I just have concern about replacing the city fleet. we should only replace vehicles reaching the end of their life cycle. Not scrapping them all at once please. I like the fact that the people will have a brand new facility but the waste of materials from the old one will go to the landfill. Not sure how this waste is good for the climate I think this is a great step into the right direction. Thank you for all the hard work that you all do. This is very black and white, it is too bad that options are not presented. The more energy efficient solutions are more expensive ones to buy and install. What effect will this have on the day to day operations budget? What work will be cut back or postponed? The Low carbon city fleet is not a priority and vehicles and be swapped to electric vehicles as the old gas powered vehicles become unusable. Electric School buses to and from NWSS will reduce traffic throughout the city. There are other more pressing issues than this It is difficult to see the construction activity related to the replacement of the Canada games pool ever being offset by the buildings increased energy efficiency. Seems at odds with moving the recycling depot away from a central location, causing longer car trips, in order to facilitate more parking of all things. Will elected officials and employees participate by reducing their carbon footprint by walking, bicycling and use of public transportation, will incentives such as transit passes be used? Capital budget for new community facilities is way too high. We are a small community. This is more than 1 million dollars per resident. What percentage of residents use these facilities? Far too much capital when other basic infrastructure improvements need attention. I am against this extravagant spending. I'm pleased to see that they're very ambitious and well co-ordinated. None I think you are being silly. Focus on services you should be able to provide but don’t, such as clearing snow from public walkways and bus stops Maybe up the price of parking permits. if have 4 people in a household - then 1 permit should be $50, 2nd permit $100 and 3rd $150? I agree but believe there should be more bike lanes for high school students travelling all over new west to the High school. These kids are future commuters, let's get them in the routine of biking now to decrease cars on the road later. This will also decrease the costs of parents having to drive or send their kids to daycare and will increase these childrens independance. Does using structural wood products really lower environmental impact? We should be sure, and if they do not reduce environmental impact we should use other materials that do. that's the best you can do? I thought this was supposed to be an emergency. Building expensive new facilities generates a lot of GHGs and I’m not convinced it is the top response to an emergency. The removal of the cities Recycling Depot is a disappointment and directly goes against the Bold Steps. People now have to travel 2,3, 4 times farther and get stuck into a hard to access grid lock zone to drop of recyclables. Driving up emissions. I expect large dumping of recyclables either into general trash or on city property. Forcing city to haul it and cost tax payers more. No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion It is amazing - keep it up. Will this also be removing natural gas from heating Corporate buildings? please stop using words like BOLD and Climate Emergency Responce, there is nothing bold about anything the city is doing and no we are not leaders of anything. I do not agree with closing the recycling depot by the Canada Games Pool. As only a very small portion of the capital budget for new facilities is related to climate action, it is quite inaccurate to suggest that over $100M of the total capital budget is dedicated to climate action under this move. The mayor and council were elected by the citizens to manage our city. If you choose to be political or climate activists, please do it in your spare time and dime. Stop your reckless spending Too many vehicles travel through our city everyday and there appears to be no way to eliminate the problem as our city in the middle of commuters daily routes. I do agree going green is important but at what cost. Many of our roads are in dire need of repair such as Sixth Ave from 12th St to 18th St Very short sighted to say you want to green and yet in your over zealous potential budget you are removing our WELL USED recycle yard. Occasional pop ups will not work and travelling to another municipality does not make sense. Zero consultation with the taxpayers. Our taxes are out of control. City is beyond its scope Do not pour money into climate change as we have next to no impact on the planet. Complete waste of money. Theow support behind pipelines so we can get 3rd world countries off coal. Be bolder! Ensure safe AAA cycling facilities allow for safe cycling access to new facilities. Buildings should be LEED Platinum. It’s not enough to say “energy efficient”—all modern buildings are more efficient than those built 30+ years ago... The replacement pool has taken too long to be built. The recycling depot should be accommodated at this site in a smaller modified version! The engineering dept has been working on reduced fossil fuels for (20+) many years thus this is not a BOLD step. These steps are not bold but rather typical of what you see for new civic facilities.

Efforts must be measurable and targets need to be set Steps 2 and the last one could be served by giving us back our recycling depot, which you took away without consultation. All that money and we can’t have a new recycling depot. Citizens are already carbon taxed on many levels both federally and provincially. In addition the city is revenue positive when i comes to electrical utilities. This climate campaign is very poorly conceived. Changes can be done at the time of normal replacement unless a business case can be made for earlier replacement. The electricity still has to be generated. The ecological costs of the generation and transmission need to be considered (see Site C Dam). Would be great to encourage more gas stations to install EV charging stations. One of the biggest barriers is the fear that there aren't enough places to charge but there are gas stations at practically every corner. But if there were EV stations at some gas stations, people would start to connect the two and think - oh they are easier to find. Only having EV stations on "public property" contributes to the perception that they aren't plentiful enough. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/electric-vehicles-can-soon- power-up-at-some-b-c-gas-stations-1.4596270 A lot of money. Remember us taxpayers please. No I agree updating buildings is important but wonder at the environmental impact of disposing of the old buildings and impact of materials to build new buildings. I also think part of the strategy re vehicles should include reducing the number of vehicles and very critically examine what we are using them for such as monitoring parking stalls by car. More transport focused would have been good. Bus lanes. Bike lanes. Safe sidewalks and public realm improvements. Slow vehicles down please. - I really like developing infrastructure to support zero emission electric vehicles. - I don't think photo voltaic panels isn't important because it's only 5% - The building upgrades is great and needed The photo voltaic panels might be able to provide more than 5% of the energy. How can this not include a full service Recycling Centre? I am strongly opposed to forcing people to drive to Coquitlam to recycle -- assuming we even have cars -- this does not reduce the carbon footprint of our City. It is unnecessary to spend New Westminster citizen tax dollars to expand facilities, such as the Canada Games Pool to a sufficient size to be used by the larger Metro Vancouver community (such as being a full-length Olympic-size pool). If it is made unnecessarily large, it will become a destination for other communities, increasing carbon emissions of these commuters, increasing traffic and congestion in the area, and causing other communities to freeload off our city's investments. I disagree that investing in Photo Voltaic panels is a wise use of city funds. BC currently runs on a nearly 0 GHG Hydro Electric grid with much lower cost of electricity than solar, the production and install of these panels may even contribute more C02 than they save. The use of these funds could be allocated to other services or returned to tax payers in the form of property tax reductions. On top of the seven bold steps, behavior change programs would be helpful to fight climate change.

I like to see something about waste (garbage) highlighted here. until china and india do somthing about there own pollution any thing we do is a waist of time and money and jobs Invest in further smaller community facilities so that residents can comfortably walk or transit to them, instead of driving. I support this and would like to see an all-electric (not just hybrid) fleet as soon as possible! Is there sufficient electrical infrastructure to support the electrification goals? Can the fleet requirements be met in the budget with the additional cost of electric vehicles and equipment? I would like to see details of the benefit analysis (ROI) for these initiatives. We taxpayers are not a bottomless piggy bank. Pushing for a all electric aquatic center will increase operating costs. There are more efficient gas boilers now than when the pool was last refitted I worry that striving to be a Carbon Free Corporation is the least effective and impactful action listed. It's a great goal but I worry that the capital cost is high vs. actions that influence community CHG, which are the lions share of the issue. I'd rather the city calm traffic and build bike lanes. Enthusiasm for electricity is misplaced. All electricity in BC is from dams, which are environmental disasters. Soon they will all be decommissioned, leaving us with no source of power. Electricity is inefficient for heating anyway. Heat recaptured from wastewater pipes is a more intelligent choice. Lithium in batteries for vehicles is mined destructively. Don't be a part of the problem. Find the resources within current budgets. Take the initiative and find cost savings internally through efficiencies and better fiscal management. What is "bold" about these "steps" except to force citizens to pay more taxes? This is just our city council members pandering to the "climate change" cabal, which is a hoax. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" theory has already been discredited. Science is NOT based on consensus. Meanwhile, city council destroys our recycling centre because it will be an eyesore beside our new swimming pool.. This initiative is a distraction designed to provide a cloak for actual steps being taken to dismantle our municipality. I am very happy to see the City of New Westminster making these steps to plan new community buildings that will be energy efficient. I hope that the city will use all appropriate roof tops for photo voltaic panels. Require apartment buildings to provide electrical outlets with proper metering facilities to recharge vehicles in garages. New Energy Efficiency Community Facilities - Construction of new facilities results in a massive amount of released CO2 from concrete and other materials, transportation, and construction. Improving and retrofitting existing buildings would be much more carbon efficient. - PV does not make much sense this far north in such a cloudy climate... particularly when our current electrical energy supply is comparatively low carbon. - Use of structural wood products is great. Corporate Building Energy Upgrades - Don't install natural gas unit heaters at Glenbrook Firehall. Use electric or geothermal heating instead - far more efficient and low CO2. Consider cogeneration projects with industry in the city to provide heating. Low Carbon City Fleet - Excellent! Only use lithium for hybrid and electrical vehicles that is sourced with consent, environmental integrity, and appropriate compensation from the Mapuche people of Chile, and the Aymara and Personal Information Quechua peoples of Bolivia (among others), and do not support the governments of countries who gained power through coups or the international mining companies who work through them (especially Canadian based ones). we should be striving to have more than 5% of renewable power from Solar panels. There is no reason to not have any new structure covered in solar panels. Cheaper to plan for it now than do modify later. I'm not sure it's fair to say that the "greening" of the new, much-needed Community Centre should be recognized as part of the City's climate emergency response plan. The Centre had to be done anyway. Deciding to "green" it up is a convenient opportunity to take credit from already planned capital spending to appear that the city is spending over 50% of it's budget on climate-related initiatives. I'm not sure you're using the term Emergency correctly here. All staff should be supported to transit, video, bike and walk to/from work but also to meetings around town. Inaction and mitigation will be more expensive. Let’s just hope other cities and governments follow suit. i hope the CGP replacement has been designed for the future. We already know that the design includes too much private vehicle storage. I think all new city buildings should also consider climate adaption and incorporate community refuge features, such as hepa filters, device charging stations (with enough renewable power to support the charging stations) etc. When the Arenex was upgraded and insulation added to reduce cost of heating, the snow did not melt and the building collapsed. I think the energy and efficiency upgrades should be heavily focused on new buildings and new construction, not older buildings. Do I agree that it supports this “Bold Step”? Yes. Do I support this Bold Step should be the question. The construction of any building is going to have an impact on the planet. From my understanding, solar panels have limited life span, and the materials used are not 100% recyclable. The large scale harvesting of wood is destructive to ecosystems, and increasing the use of wood is likely to increase clear cutting. Concrete has an impact as well. Moving towards electric vehicles is nice step, but I have doubts that the infrastructure will achieve zero emissions. Have New West's biggest polluters been identified? Are there incentives/disincentives to encourage improvement? I think we need to be as aggressive and comprehensive as possible when dealing with this issue. More pressure should be put on industries and businesses that are the highest contributors to GHGs instead of relying heavily on individuals. How about city-wide Meatless Mondays, and single use plastic bans? I also think private vehicle use should be further discouraged in preference of public transportation, walking and cycling even more than is outlined here. As much as I agree that the steps support the Climate Response it does not mean that I agree with the steps planned. I'm afraid that the amount of monies required to support the "plan" will quickly exceed the ability of the residents to support ($$) I would like to know what is net cost after accounting for energy cost savings. We may want to defer these expenditures and invest instead in climate change mitigation and response infrastructure changes since the probablility is low that we will be able to stop these climate changes, especially with the minor contribution of the City to global climate change, yet we will have to pay for our City's expenses that result from climate change. Has a study of New West activities been undertaken to determine where the biggest contributors of carbon output are and do these steps affect those largest contributors? Do these actions offer other financial benefits to New West (lower operating costs, longer replacement cycle, etc)? Is it fair to add the community facilities (which were well underway before the seven bold steps were decided) to be rolled under this? Seems like trying to take credit for something already underway. I would prefer to see more financial resources allocated to the low carbon city fleet. Curious if there is some mechanism for evaluating carbon reductions and a review process such that every 2 years on the road to net zero by 2030 the City can evaluate progress and "ratchet" up efforts as necessary, similar to how countries under the Paris Agreement are asked to periodically evaluate and ratchet up efforts. To expect home owners to upgrade to carbon emissions expectations in such a short time frame is unrealistic. I’m not sure why capital budget is mixed in with climate emergency , I’m hoping that 102 million is not what needs to be spent for the carbon free part of these facilities. I am also not convinced that hybrid or all electric vehicles carbon foot print is much better as we are still early into this technology . I’m would like to see the carbon foot print to produce and dispose of these vehicles. I also have worked on some of the hybrid vehicles such as bucket trucks over the years, they spend a lot more time down for repairs. There needs to be a cost analysis done on purchase plus repairs and down time over a time period. I would like to see if how much of the carbon foot print actually is being saved when everything is taken into account . A couple examples are that high efficiency equipment doesn’t last nearly as long . What is the foot print to produce it and dispose of it. Let’s include the vehicles and batteries in this also. I think all new development in our city should should be built to be extremely efficient and green with as small a carbon footprint as possible. Not just city buildings but all development. New Queens Park Sportsplex must have many Electric Vehicle charging stations I agree but offering low carbon fleet for the city, how about city employees and how they get to work? From what I see a large portion of city employees drive to work from home in non green vehicles. We should all look at problems from the root of the problem not the middle. The removal and construction of community sports/fitness buildings will use up a lot of fuel (running heavy equipment, transporting materials and crews) plus the use of new materials is not eco-friendly. While the resultant buildings may have eco-friendly features, the construction phases will contribute pollution. Further, it's good to see a plan to use solar energy, however, why only 5%??? I would suggest that more green sources of electricity be produced which can go back into the grid. Do not do it at the reduction of regular maintenance Don’t replace existing equipment etc until they reach end of normal life. I like that you are actually doing something. But I would like to see a government entity work to reverse pollution instead of stopping it. Stop plastic from the Fraser before the ocean. Clean the shores, filter the air... something while these steps are important, there is much more that can be done from a sustainability perspective.... tangible efforts could include a broader lens related to climate risks This is fantastic! If the City is going to spend this much money it should go directly to tax payers in order to upgrade dwellings to be more energy efficient. Corporate building upgrades and city fleet upgrades are a drop in the bucket compared to the inefficient energy use in homes across the city. New Westminster has a lot of history and heritage to offer and that attracts people. This Bold Steps Plan would bring another variable to the table as it would set New West up as being a leader (of communities) working to create climate-friendly decisions financially and in practice. I am happy to see that zero emission fleet vehicles are a part of the organization's plan for corporate carbon reduction and that energy efficiency will factor into the new buildings being built and the renovations being undertaken. It would also be good for the city to set a base standard for all new city buildings that is equivalent to step 4 (or 5) of the BC energy step code. It would seem that a low carbon fleet and corporate building upgrades are good steps forward -- however, the location of the new Canada Games Pool seems to reinforce ongoing automobility if located in a location so far from mass transit and the growing population. Why not (re)consider the auto oriented suburban location of the Canada Games replacement pool or at least construct a n additional facility closer to where large numbers of residents live in rental and new condos and closer to transit on Skytrain, bus hubs and in proximity to the Queensborough Ferry for instance? The long term growth in New West is on the opposite end of where the Canada Games Pool reconstruction is proposed, suggestion a lack of long-term vision and reinforcing the trend of auto oriented trips to recreation. Community recreation projects that encourage people to take part in sport and recreation that does not need infrastructure and less power consumption. For instance a paddling centre where people use non-motorized water craft instead of a swimming pool. I am not against swimming pools but I do think people need to do things that aren’t such a drain on the environment. I wonder if it would be more efficient to build a couple of medium sized solar plants, rather than putting a few panels on each roof. There would be advantages in terms of safety (for installers) and economies of scale. A panel providing 5% of facility demand is not providing much resilience. Staff can further reduce their carbon footprint by using electric vehicles and e-bikes to commute to work and during work in the course of their duties. Yes, BUT. I believe most of this money is being spent on replacing the pool. Given that the pool was going to be replace anyway, you should not mix the basic pool replacement costs with the climate emergency budget. Only the extra amounts which will be spent to make the facility more energy efficient should be attributed towards the climate emergency budget. Other items are appropriate. But where will the money to support this come from?

3) Do you agree that this Bold Step (#2 – Car Light Community) supports the City's Climate Emergency Response? Respondents: 270

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 71.11% 192 No 23.70% 64 I do not have an opinion 5.19% 14 Total 100% 270

4) Do you have any comments related to this bold step? Respondents: 132

4) Do you have any comments related to this bold step?

Personal Information Quit this That's just infrastructure. People have walked long before it was cool to do so. I'd like to see more and better bike lanes. Stewardson way is awful, and the way the bike lane ends where Columbia turns into Stewardson is ridiculous. It's also not awesome to get between downtown and uptown on a bike. In Chicago all employees of the City must reside in that city. If they move during their course of employment they will lose their job. This is good for the climate. Chicago also has amazing transit. But the city still requires you to live in the city. Much more needs to be done towards improving and expanding separated bicycle paths in the city. Improving crossings along the BC Parkway, for example. Great ideas, better road connections to prevent major congestion, as people speed down lots of side roads in uptown to avoid traffic elsewhere. To The City needs to evaluate its investment in bicycle facilities to determine where it gets the biggest bang per buck. The City needs to have a second cycling route to NWSS. Students cycling from the east side of the City need a safe and more direct bike route to the school than through Moody Park. It is not reasonable to expect students from the east side to travel through Moody Park to reach the school on Sixth Street. The City also needs to designate and sign a Downtown-Uptown bicycle route. The City also needs to shift public road space from motor vehicles to transit, cycling and walking if it is serious about increasing the mode share of sustainable transportation. This is a continuation of existing projects. What makes it "bold"? This is regular city infrastructure and maintenance, not climate action. This should be included in regular infrastructure and planning budgets and not subject to additional taxation if that is planned. Should do this regardless While I agree with these projects and am excited for them, how are they related to improving climate emergency response? Is there an opportunity for bike shares?

Can the Q to Q ferry (diesel) be replaced with electric (they do exist). The City's spending on Greenway projects should place greater priority on closing gaps in the bicycle network rather than bringing up existing bike routes to a gold standard. The City needs to designate an Uptown-Downtown bike route. It is the biggest gap in the bicycle network. The City needs a safe and efficient bike route to the Sixth Street entrance of the New Westminster Secondary School replacement that does not go through Moody Park. It is unreasonable to expect students cycling from the east side of the City to go through Moody Park to access the new school. There cannot be only one safe bicycle route to the school. School area improvements must also include private institutions such as John Knox Secondary School. I am concerned though about the traffic management and amount of vehicles idling while trying to exit Ginger Drive onto 6th. With the new facilities coming into place I trust there will be consideration to the residents ability to come out of Ginger Drive and not sitting idling in vehicles for long periods of time as is currently the case when having to turn left onto 6th. There are only bike riders in the summer on weekends, don’t waste money on bike paths that are not used Not sure the Q2Q ferry really offers many GHG reductions or potential change in modes for the cost. Prefer that the City and TransLink spend on transit priority instead. This supports the plan, but isn't what you'd call "bold". If I can count improvements for cyclists and pedestrians on one hand, it's not nearly enough. And I don't see anything here about restricting the number of cars on our roads. Recommend the City dedicate resources to establishing a complete and connected bicycle network as endorsed by Council in Master Transportation Plan (MTP). A complete and connected bicycle network includes a safe and efficient bicycle connection from the Crosstown Greenway (on Seventh Avenue) to the Sixth Street entrance of the New Westminster Secondary School replacement and a Downtown-Uptown bike route (between the Waterfront and Tenth Avenue). A complete and connected bicycle network also prioritizes completing gaps over bringing up existing bike routes to a gold-standard. Recommend the City implement a review step for all transportation projects to ensure they align with the MTP. Recommend the City prioritize sustainable transportation routes to schools and work with school staff to educate students on their existence and use. Recommend the City begin a formal road space re-allocation process where existing public space primarily used for motor vehicles is re-assigned to be primarily used for sustainable transportation. Why do you call everything a “bold” step. Surveys should not have bias written into them Can we also look at widening sidewalks to reflect real pedestrian traffic - e.g. parts of 6th Street where you have to walk on grass to move around someone respectfully. I haven't cycled in two months because this is harassment in the dark time in the rat running lanes. The Columbia bike lane must be protected sidewalk, lane, then parking (anything else is a dangerous right turn/loading lane - I can take a picture of this daily) We need to ungap the map - how are we building a cycling network? ALL City owned & leased vehicles should be zero carbon by 2030 More marketing/education for car-less cities. More car pooling etc. All routes to schools should be made as safe as possible for kids to walk or ride independently. Bike routes separate from the street as much as possible. More preventative measures in place. Traffic slowing measures enforced. Accessible City bikes with ways to assist up hill. Public bus operators and drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike should have mandatory annual refresher training on the rules of engagement, safety and road rules. And a rewards system for safe driving practices instead of threat of penalty. More bike routes to the high school should be planned for. Longer term, implement for better direct cycling/pedestrian connection, over or under the freeway, from Sapperton Green directly to Maillardville. that's the best you can do? not much of an emergency, is it. I like the Greenway projects in general, but a friend moved into a condo downtown recently and was looking for a safe route to ride his bicycle to get uptown and onwards to Burnaby where he works. Maybe you could provide some signage etc to help bike riders and others get between uptown and downtown. I think this is a higher priority than the Braid Street path you mention above. I also notice the Riverfront Connection. It's another project that will be nice but is not as important or as urgent as more safe routes in the heart of the City. I have done some research and I see you have good bicycle routes mapped out in the Master Transportation Plan that would create a "Complete, Connected Bicycle Network." That would be fantastic! I hope your promise (in the Strategic Plan) to put sustainable transportation first, with an emphasis on safety for pedestrians, bike riders (MTP), will hold true in the coming year. Not practical. Cars are essential to families especially since the bus network does not serve the city well Not convinced Q to Q ferry is necessary. It seems very expensive I have seen the Master Transportation Plan and it looks excellent. Steps toward implementing seem like an important step in facilitating cycling. Smarter traffic light technology would help promote walking (and cycling), And even make cars more efficient. Nearly every other time I cross Royal on Tenth Street, having pushed the button, I will see a batch of cars go by, then a gap when there is no traffic in either direction and then finally just as a batch of cars is arriving from one direction or the other, the traffic will finally turn. Surely, if we can get self driving technology to be nearly there, the much simpler problem of having the traffic light notice when there are no cars is solvable and has been solved. I'd love to see some investigation of smarter traffic lights. Another annoying feature of that particular intersection is that during rush hour, sometimes even with pedestrians having pushed the buttons to cross Royal, the light will go green for the cars crossing Royal but not for pedestrians. Of course, most pedestrians ignore this and cross anyways. I know that Royal is an important thorough fare and one we need to keep flowing. But crossing 10th St is not the bottleneck. Greenways are key and do more than just support car free. Actively seeking out opportunities to sequester carbon along existing High volume car corridors should be part of this action Include requirement that home owners be responsible for ensuring sidewalks are clear of any overhanging bushes from ground to 7 feet high - this will reinforce city mandate to encourage more walkers by making it easier to use existing sidewalks - we already are replacing drop curbs, why would we allow home owners to have their landscaping encroach public paths used by a number of mobility challenged users. Direct Protected connection from crosstown green way to new high school for opening day. Moving away from push button's to activate cyclist crossing lights and instead adopting detection loops or cameras. This will further community support away from automobiles for people with disabilities. I want to know if the "greenways" proposed include separated bike lanes. If bike lanes are not separated from car traffic and pedestrians they are a waste of time. Who's going to feel then incentive to ride a bike when they aren't safely protected by cars, and might get tangled up with pedestrians. Furthermore, I want my children to be able to cycle to NWSS from the east side of the city as well. Why aren't separated bike lanes along Sixth Street being proposed? Get with the program, New Westminster! If climate change really is an emergency, then get serious. No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion Achieving a Car Light Community means addressing the reasons people choose to drive. Reasons such as employment and vacation destinations are outside city limits and sidewalks are next to busy roads thereby voiding the enjoyment and health benefits of walking. The examples listed above are worthy of completion, but miss striking at the heart of this bold step. How about creating car-free streets on all grade streets within New West - starting with downtown Columbia? This would greatly aid and improve creating a car-light community sorry but bike lanes are not BOLD, and they could have been built years ago. I have lived in NW for about 14 months and have only seen one bike being used Also need a downtown to uptown bike route, connecting missing parts of the bike routes, improving the bike route gaps safe routes and bike parking at the new high school While these transportation investments are worthwhile, it is highly unlikely that they will result in any significant mode shift. Given highly constrained capital budgets, investments must demonstrate a significant GHG reduction impact. Notably missing are funds to accelerate quality transit shelters at all stops. Transit is the most likely alternative mode to cars, and the lack of adequate weather protection for transit users during recent torrential rains is a leading cause of this mode not being more prominent. Interesting that other than the Braid Street section, no funds are identified to complete and improve the substandard Brunette Fraser Greenway. As you reduce road infrastructure and roads please invest heavily in other modes. People don't make the switch unless the sustainable options are pleasent and convenient. Please consider road maintenance. Potholes are a problem for cyclists on roads. Q to q ferry is a novelty and a waste of money stop your reckless spending

I semi agree but not at the expense of necessary or planned capital projects. Greater use of transit and connection to main hubs such as skytrain Silly, mayor is favour of expanding Pat. bridge more vehicles! Moving recycle depot out of city! More driving! Make your minds up Be bolder! We need a downtown to Uptown safe cycling route, AAA cycling infrastructure with connections to all schools in the city (public & private), road pricing... Providing parking for EVO cars but not for persons with disabilities in the same proportions around the Royal Columbia Hospital is not BOLD. Again this sounds like simple repackaging of already planned projects to now call them part of the citys 'bold climate emergency plan' There has been a path through Moody Park to EnDub since as far back as I remember...so that is not a new proposal You need to greatly improve tree cover where you want people to walk/bike. Current area on 6th from Sapperton to Canada games pool is insanely hot in the summer with no tree shade for several blocks. I almost got sunstroke walking that in the summer. 15 minute flat walk and I am a healthy 30 year old! All these projects are existing and you are not fooling the informed. Cars are still necessary and moving traffic was a promised that has been not kept. These are neglected maintenance projects being sold to us as new initiatives. Ferry is translinks issue/cost. I would prefer to see investment in making the cycling network complete per mtp plan using paint and other more cheaper techniques than spending large amounts on making short stretches triple a. This network could then be incrementally improved. This will have a greater impact on reducing car journeys. I think this is a great approach as many people move to New West with the intention of not have a car. However, removing the recycling depot facility from the core of New Westminster doesn't help facilitate this objective as people will have to drive to the new proposed facility as no public transit or reasonable way to access it. Also, Evo car share is ending so alternatives don't seem very available. The cost does not translate to a demonstrable benefit. These are feel good measures and not game changers. While I agree that we should increase the transit options and walk ability of the city, I am concerned that any decrease in road infrastructure would make it hard to enter new west and actually increase car idle time (and therefore pollution). I have to drive for work and I worry about increased traffic, especially as road infrastructure is being put aside for plans like these. The Moody Park changes must ensure that its ability to be used as greenspace for relaxation and recreation is not impeded. More asphalt is not needed in the park. Would love to see if Translink is game to do a community-wide pilot version of U-pass with the CNW! Right now transit is pay per use - the less you use, the more you save. But what is property tax went up $ 100, but that gave everyone in New West an unlimited transit pass for one year. Then the more you use, the more you save. And one year is enough for new transportation habits to form. Sell it as a one year pilot project. I agree with most of this but not the Q to Q ferry. It was reported to have lost over $700,000 this past year. I do not think it then viable. That money coud best be used elsewhere. There need to be improvements made to queensborough as well

Please also think of the tripping hazards from tree routes raising the concrete. I love the EV charging for vessels

More car light push. Introducing ride share will also help.

Is the q to q really making an impact? Q to Q ferry is a waste of money. The other elements of this part of the plan are acceptable. Simple pedestrian signal adjustments would have a positive effect on the walking experience in New Westminster. The default mode of pedestrian actuated signals seems to be "red hand" unless actuated. This is highly frustrating as it often means standing on the corner for a full cycle if you were not in time to press the button before your phase. Please consider defaulting to a minimum walk cycle when phase length permits. This practice is in line with most pedestrian friendly municipalities in North America. It's a simple, no-cost improvement that requires no additional infrastructure. Unfortunately, New Westminster is a "pass through" community. Many people transit through New Westminster on their way into and out of Vancouver/ Surrey. In order to reduce GHG as much as possible, we need to look at options to ensure that vehicles can move as efficiently as possible through our city. This includes the timing of street lights to ensure that vehicles do not spend un-due amounts of time idling at intersections. Looking at a city like Calgary, which has put significant effort into traffic light optimization and use of advanced left turn signals to ensure traffic spends less time idling would be a wise move for city planners if the focus here is GHG reduction. No

The school one is extremely important. Walking school busses are needed. How much of this will be invested in Queensborough, this community is forced to be the most car dependent because of a lack of sidewalks and other basic infrastructure as well as a lack of decent options to cross the river (the Q2Q is simply not big enough and doesn’t provide service For nearly enough hours. It’s not bold, enough with the marketing speak. Expedite the waterfront Greenway - it will connect most neighborhoods and improve active transportation mobility. Discourage vehicle commuters to downtown by removing the Front Street parkade. This will help activate the heritage buildings and expand on the success of the Front street Mews. The fact that most of New Westminster is on hills means that people will continue to use cars because the hills are too steep for most people to walk or bike. I especially like the plans for cycle path improvements. Safer cycling means more cycling! The City plans to plant many more trees. Many of the problems with the existing sidewalks are related to trees and there root systems. Thought needs to go into type and location of any additional trees. Moving our recycle depot to Coqupitlam will negate most of the”benefits” of these initiatives. You are forcing residents to use vehicles in order to recycle. Unfortunately ideology seems to trump analysis and common sense in the political arena. The Greenways listed have all been in the works for years. BE BOLDER! Where are new commitments, like a Greenway connection between Downtown and Uptown, bike lanes on East Columbia by RCH, fixing gaps in the Central Valley Greenway, protected bike lanes on Columbia Street Downtown. Plus areas around schools need to be generally rethought. So much more should be in the pipeline. Remember that we must consider other sources than electricity if we really care about the environment. Going too far with something that has no future will be very costly when it must all be redone from scratch. To use less, why not look to solar-storage lights that only come on when movement is sensed? That's just one example. Again .... too much spend. Work within the resources you have. Homeowners are already tapped out. I love bikes, but why do they get special lanes and "protected" lanes when cyclists do NOT require a driver's licence, a licence plate nor insurance? I have seen them cause vehicle accidents and have been run into FIVE times by cyclists on sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. They screamed obscenities at me for being in the way, while I deal with the bruises and pay to repair ruined rain coats. And, do bicycles just evaporate or contribute to the compost when they die? Wake up, Council. Some of these items support climate action, some do not in any material way Another fantasy statement. Trying to sell us neglected maintenance projects as new improvements. Making the city more walkable has many benefits - improved mental and physical health for people, increased sense of community and less traffic and carbon emissions. I would also like to see more charging stations in New Westminster to support ev owners. I am a walker in hilly New West.....many can only manage walking near the river. Hence these projects will benefit many. Avoid repeating the 7th ave "bike lanes" disaster by ensuring a proper surface when designating bike lanes etc. Many areas of New Westminster (i.e. those not in the core of uptown) do not have convenient and reliable transit service to support use of public transportation (i.e. no bus service along 10th Ave; in frequent and in direct bus service along 8th Ave to skytrain stations or major shopping with large grocery stores) as such it forces residents to use their cars. NW itself is a transportation throughfare for many cars from other cities. I believe the current bike network should be upgraded to encourage all levels of cyclist to feel comfortable on the road. These are not "bold" actions. They are bare minimum actions. The master transportation plan is 5 years old and progress has been glacial. How about a moratorium on motor vehicle road construction and immediate annual re-allocation targets of road space primarily used by motor vehicles to either sustainable transportation or green space. Paving Moody park so students can get to the high school by bike is an egregious sacrifice of photosynthesizing land when there is asphalt already in place in the roadway. Strengthen these to include bike paths across NW, and the river connection at Sapperton landing now Many more EV Charging Stations. I can't replace my gasoline-powered vehicle with an electric vehicle until I know the charging infrastructure is in place. (NB I currently park in the Impark Lot near Carnarvon & 4th St.) Let's make sure right-of-ways are designed in a less car-friendly way that is safer for pedestrians. E.g. intersections that broaden so it's easy and fast for cars to turn right but makes for a longer crosswalk. i understand that emergency vehicles need to make turns, but those vehicles are likely to be smaller in the future. Although this is a commendable project to take on, let's not forget that many residents rely on their vehicles for various reasons (commuting to/from work, getting groceries, picking up kids from daycare, etc). There are many intersections and roads in the city that could use some attention - for example, sections of Third Avenue could use some T.L.C. I walk a lot in NW and find that sidewalk conditions are less of an issue than drainage on the streets / alleys that you need to cross to continue on the sidewalk. In many places water runs down across the entire street/ alley and when it freezes walking becomes treacherous. (a good example of this is the alley coming down to Richmond St on the on the Richard McBride School side of the tunnel.) I recommend that simple curbs are installed to direct water to a drain or more focused location so that you can step over the ice. Also, there are areas of New West that are very steep and with icy conditions the sidewalks are dangerous. Recommend in high traffic and steep sections that railings are installed.. In regards to biking, our biking activity is primarily recreational and the barrier to more 'transportation' biking is secure bike storage. I have an EV bike perfect for errands, however risk of bike theft prevents me from using my bike for the vast majority of my errands. Agree completely. Do I agree that it supports this “Bold Step”? Yes. Do I support this Bold Step should be the question. We might also need to include trips from vehicles owned by the municipality. I don't think it is fair to expect the public to reduce its use of vehicles, while the city continues to use them, or also increasing the usage over time. It's good, but not great. Many bike routes have gaps or are not designed to accommodate adaptive bicycles for people with special needs or child trailers. Most women I talk to who live in New West about cycling say they would like to cycle more, but feel it's too dangerous. I agree. We need AAA cycling infrastructure, but we also need connecting routes that don't just last a few blocks and then fizzle out leaving cyclists in danger from overly aggressive motorists. I'm an experienced cyclist who has commuted from New West to Vancouver for years, and I've had more negative encounters with vehicles here than in Vancouver. Even though Vancouver is much denser, there are much more connected and safer bike routes. The Q to Q project is a waste of taxpayer monies and should be eliminated. Q2Q ferries burn fuel (though the EV transitions interesting), and I'm not convinced it adds a ton of value beyond a small niche of QB residents who are trying to get to the skytrain. Why not blend the $1.75M with other walking/biking projects, and build a walking/biking bridge? Also, build upon the walk/bike enhancements by extending the waterfront path to sapperton, and west to QB, incl better connection with the Grimston walkway bridge (move the path away from Stewardson, way too noisy/dangerous). These are infrastructure changes that must occur regardless of climate change issues to make a healthier and more live-able community. Because you will remove the Recycling Depot that is in the middle of the city and encourage the taxpayers to drive 40-60 minutes to Coquitlam instead. Look, I heard so many explanation on why this change is good. None of them make sense. Solution?, remove half of the parking lot used for the new Pool Facility for relocating the new Recycling Depot and you will also encourage people to take transit. What about that? First, the goal shouldn’t be “car light” as a fully electric fleet of vehicles would be superior. So designing the initiative to be “encouraging other transportation options” would be better. Q to Q ferry improvements seem like a waste of money. Sidewalk improvements also seem high. Multimodal projects that change how residents move through the city is more valuable. Any plans to create a greenway that connects to the waterfront and that heads east along the river? I agree with most suggestions except more bike lanes. Our community contains a large proportion of seniors who do not or cannot use bikes to travel around the city. These items should have always been items that just make the city a better place to live rather than making them under climate emergency. 1. Fix up the Seventh Avenue bike lane between Sixth and Eighth Streets. The road is now too narrow and it can be difficult to turn into Seventh Avenue. Also, with the bike lane along the curb and the parking further out, it's difficult to get a clear view of the street when turning from a parking lot onto Seventh Ave. 2. Get TransLink involved and see if they can improve bus services. Buses to SkyTrain in the morning rush hour and buses from SkyTrain in the afternoon rush hour are overcrowded. I’m not sure why this is included in the climate emergency plan . I think this should have always been part of making the city a better place to live. Focus need to be brought to the diets in the city. Lunch programs for students that recommend healthier and more sustainable foods. Vegan restaurants need incentives to start up in the city. Other than the bike lanes, I don’t see how this makes anything green? With the bikes lanes why not plan out bike routes then instead of building protected lanes first how about start off with painted lanes identifying them without the larger expense to see if they’ll actually work first. I get the sense that regular capital projects and improvements are now being spun as climate change projects. Repairing sidewalks is not a climate change project. The Q to Q ferry is not an emissions free ferry. Encouraging walking isn't going to make the city more green. We have a lot of seniors, and we have a lot of steep hills. Those of us who walk, will continue to do so! Disability needs to be incorporated More lighting through Moody Park, in particular if it is going to see more people walking or cycling. Needs to be more funding on building protected cycling facilities, and completing/making accessible the sidewalk network. Every time a road is worked on, re-allocate space to non- private auto use. I don't think the prices of the Q to Q ferry is reasonable, and the boardwalk in Queensborough doesn't make sense. For example, why wouldn't the QtoQ go to the "Landing" by the shopping centers instead of residential? I also am not a fan of the Q to Q, it is not affordable. Moody Park: already has a bike lane Braid: it is sketchy and the industrial area has been isolated for so long. This doesn't seem to be a high priority. The city should put pedestrians first before cars. We need to use our spaces wisely, there should be a connection from Downtown to Uptown. Also a Connection from Downtown to Sapperton. I've tried walking this and there just isn't any good transit or pedestrian friendly streets that connect the Downton to Sapperton area. If there was one street it would take 20 minutes. Hoping the City will commit to working with Translink to improve bus service for students in the City. Students being told they cannot get on buses if they have large equipment during rush hour times is not acceptable. Would also like to see the school improvements include more after school options for kids, maybe work with the school board to offer programs at the schools instead of at a community center. I would like to see the school area improvements have some element of car-free/car light streets attached. There are places starting to make the 1 to 2 block radius around the schools car free during school hours (or permanently) These steps do not address climate change, this is just capital spending with climate related greenwashing No free parking for City employees. It encourages driving over transit.

Additions of Car Free Streets I love it! Again these projects which I believe were already planned and not under a climate emergency action plan are more window dressing in comparison to the struggles New West residents have due to poor insulation and insufficient windows due to climate change. I am encouraged to see that these plans include many geographic areas of New Westminster and provide a variety of options that support walkers, cyclists, seniors and students. I think this is a plan I could support 100%. However, I feel we need to ensure that the City dedicates resources to establishing a complete and connected bicycle network as endorsed by Council in Master Transportation Plan (MTP). A complete and connected bicycle network includes a safe and efficient bicycle connection from the Crosstown Greenway (on Seventh Avenue) to the Sixth Street entrance of the New Westminster Secondary School replacement and a Downtown-Uptown bike route (between the Waterfront and Tenth Avenue). A complete and connected bicycle network also prioritizes completing gaps over bringing up existing bike routes to a gold-standard. It is great to see that cycling will be made safer in this city giving people additional commuting options. The four examples noted above are a good start, however, bolder actions are needed to reduce our dependency on automobility. Why no mention of bussing plans working in conjunction with Translink and the Mayor's Council? For example, additional mini-bus services throughout New West would be great. Electrified buses on major routes would be excellent. Existing traffic lights in New West are exceptionally frustrating (compared with most any of the 20 Metro Van municipalities) because they are pedestrian triggered and require speedy reactions to trigger the lights. Like other municipalities they should have a default for pedestrians and should be timed for longer crossings, especially for an aging population and for youth. As it stands they priortize and valorize automobility first over and above pedestrian rights (very old school traffic engineering thinking). Moreover, roadways in quieter New West side-streets are often far too wide (even too excessive for the generous emergency vehicle access standards) and could be significantly reduced in size thereby providing space for mixed use lanes, bike lanes, road plantings or community allotment gardens for examples. Incentives should be put in place (tax reductions) for owners who construct units for non-auto owners. Finally, creative integrated use developments should be explored with Translink and non-profit developers for on-site walkable developments at 22nd Street, Columbia, Braid and Sapperton Station. This could feature increased FSR/FAR for developments that meet several criteria including: affordability/rental; non-auto use; etc. New Westminster should also consider designating some streets car-free for Sundays. I think it's important to "complete the network" of bike-friendly routes before upgrading existing routes. Downtown-uptown routes are especially lacking. I don't think multi-occupant vehicles should count as sustainable transportation, nor should shared vehicles. I think the city should help ensure there is more electric charging infrastructure for electric cars -- including by making sure the relevant regulations allow these to be built. Lower speed limits all around the city would help with safety! It's scary walking or riding my bike sometimes, not to mention driving. More serious enforcement by police against motorists who threaten cyclists would be appreciated. I filed a police report about a motorist who threatened to kill me, and I don't think they followed up. High priority should be placed on walking and cycling connection for students and residents to the NWSS and the entire complex of Massey Centre, proposed Memorial Area, Mercer Stadium, and Moody Park Arena, from the EAST portion of the City. A connection is required from the existing 7th Avenue Rotary Crosstown Greenway to this large complex of facilities where such a large group of people use as a destination hub for a large variety of educational, physical sports, and entertainment activities. Scrap money losing ferry. Yes, BUT. I strongly support the CIty spending more money to improve greenways but I feel the projects identified in the first bullet point are not good uses of tax payer funds. The City has significant gaps in the existing greenways including whole areas of the City which are not well-served by greenways. This is a big impediment to enabling more people cycling. Spending $millions in very small isolated part of the City will only create islands of greenways which are not connected to the rest of the City. These will be sparsely used and will only appear as a white elephant project, greatly discrediting cycling in the process. Instead the City needs to complete the network of greenways envisioned in the MTP, at least to the standards of the Cross town greenway (sharrows/signs/push button crossing of major streets). The crosstown greenway is already well used by people of all ages and hence is a suitable standard for our City to get started. Only when this is done will it make sense to embark upon higher standards for the greenways. The other problem with mega projects is that it takes up all of staff's time and they don't seem to have time to focus on the obvious simple things which need to get done. We need to see tangible progress on greenways throughout the city, not a few gold plated cycling tracks. The project to connect the new highschool in Moody Park is of low value (there's already paths which are used by cyclists, paving it will not make a significant difference). Most of the students accessing the new school will arrive on 6th St and hence this is where the City needs to invest in cycling connections to the new school. There has always been a plan to put a greenway through the site to 6th St and it would not be appropriate in a pro-cycling city to let this come to a dead end. Moody Park path will not increase cycling to the new school (the path is already there) the missing piece is the 6th St connection. Fund the opportunity. But how will this decrease current congestion from vehicle transiting through New West

5) Do you agree that this Bold Step (#3 – Carbon Free Homes and Buildings) supports the City's Climate Emergency Response? Respondents: 262

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 60.69% 159 No 21.76% 57 I do not have an opinion 17.56% 46 Total 100% 262

6) Do you have any comments related to this bold step? Respondents: 82

6) Do you have any comments related to this bold step?

Personal Information Your climate religion The city of new westminster is steeped in bureaucracy which causes unnecessary waste. The City should lower restrictions to higher density, freehold ownership options. Some people want to live in smaller homes such as laneway houses and tiny houses. Living in smaller homes would reduce per capita energy usage. There is no need to heat the empty rooms in my home if I was able to live in a more suitably sized home. The City's laneway house regulation requiring two on-site parking spots hurts interest in building laneway houses and is inconsistent with the City's efforts to increase the mode share of sustainable transportation. Having one on-site parking spot is more than enough for some households including mine, which depends on cycling and walking. The City should allow homeowners to locate tiny homes in their backyards and should experiment with a tiny house village to determine the effectiveness of this model to reduce per capita energy use. The CEEP is not yet developed, so it is very hard to agree with an initiative that is not developed. Conservation is best implemented through improvements in home appliances. Rebates work great and like to see this spend focused more on getting away from older appliances that are heavy on energy usage. You can spend a lot of green and burn lots of carbon to be green Vancouver’s energy efficiency requirements increase building costs and reduce affordability. Not sure New Westminster need to follow Vancouver’s lead. needs bolder action. Berkeley has banned natural gas from all new construction. You could do this tomorrow. Less talk, more action. Less incentive, more enforcement. You need to take a stronger approach I would need to know specific actions. Natural gas is going down in price and electricity is going up in price. Many older homes have old inefficient fireplaces that generate Co2 and pollution and most of the heat goes up the chimney creating a low pressure in the house and sucking in cold air. I believe this is important but 1.2M seems like a lot of spending for what? To write and update strategy and policy documents? The City must do more to allow for smaller, freehold ownership housing options such as laneway homes and tiny houses, which I believe would allow residents to live in more appropriately sized housing and reduce per capita energy use. I currently live in a house in which several rooms are unused but continue to be heated. If I could live in a smaller housing form within my neighbourhood, my energy use would decline and more affordable housing would be made available. The requirement that laneway homes include two onsite parking spots deters residents from building laneway homes and is inconsistent with the City's desire to increase the sustainable transportation mode share to 60%. My household uses mostly cycling and walking. Why do I need two onsite parking spots if I use sustainable transportation. The City should allow residents to live in tiny houses in their backyards and should experiment with a tiny house village. Sounds like a lot of red tape Are there any incentives for residents to do the same? Just have more 'collection' of waste i.e. once a month put out cardboard/Styrofoam/glass etc. More city involvement needed to keep landlords and building managers accountable. Rewards systems for environmental improvements and support for seniors and boomers to make these changes easier for them. please, we need to do more. Not a huge fan of incentives. Only those "in the know" benefit. And things get funded that aren't as important as things that don't. More solar gardens, can’t relive primarily on operating programs to achieve this bold goal Require all new housing projects to meet much higher standards towards efficiency's. Require chargers for electric vehicles. This “bold” step gives no indication of what it will entail. I.e. “implementation action may include”. AGAIN, No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion. Yes, how about adopting the Step Code with a low emissions pathway. And we need to get natural gas out of our buildings asap! reduce one time plastic use, eliminate disposable take away cups and containers, no sales of bottled water, install "filling" stations for reusable water bottles Seems like a very modest amount to invest in buildings, when this sector has comparable emissions to transportation, would suggest moving significant funds from greenways, which will have modest GHG reductions and shouldn't need anywhere near the amount proposed to make them safe and functional impairment, to buildings. Electric heaters are really inefficient. More unnecessary costs on the backs of the people. Over regulation These are measures for federal and provincial government! Waste of money and time at this level of government. Incentive programs must be strong enough that residents can see pay back within a short time frame. Make it easier to add laneway/carriage homes by making removing design guidelines that make projects less feasible, while adding design guidelines that mandate zero emission homes (passive homes). The City of New Westminster is very small in the global climate. Transportation is a regional issue. Solid Waste - our city gets a D grade. They are eliminating our recycling depot and only recycle 10% of what is collected. This is a national and provincial issue to be determined. Our municipalities lack the capacity to implement these issues. Please do not continue to add new taxes. We are crushed under the current burden I'd like to have more information about who the city will partner with. Based on the information here, this does not seem to be a well defined plan with much in the way of deliverables. Before we spend $1.3M to update a plan, we should ensure there is a very clear output at the end of this. Looking on the city website, I see no mention of goals for this initiative. I’m much less clear on what this one is. I don’t know what any truly zero emission options would be. How is this a bold step, this is a ‘maybe we should do something here, we’ll figure it out later but at least it gives us another bullet point’ Given the massive development in the downtown/Quay area, I have seen nothing that requires developers to build more 'green buildings'. It seems that the developers get to do pretty much anything they want. Operation budgets are not developed or designed to cover these Capital Expenses. This work plan should include additional incentives and zoning changes to create more environmentally friendly housing. For example, allow for a duplex or triplex in a single family area that would otherwise see a wasteful monster home. Allow these options only if they are built to high energy efficiency. New Westminster should become a regional leader in this area. Need more investigation and study Electricity is ridiculously inefficient for heating of any kind. Only the rich can afford it. I can't afford to have the heat on, ever. That's between 10-15 degrees inside all winter, thanks! Trying to heat water with it is foolish. And New Westminster charges a 25% surcharge on it, I was shocked when I moved here from Vancouver. Outrageous. You'll have to do better. Try to be practical. Where will all the money come from? These generalisations of the glorious climate saving work you will do with people and "organisations" are so vague, all I see is taxpayer money going to scammers. Our council needs to stop trying to make headlines. We lack the professionals to implement such initiatives. OCP was a bust, who suggested that went well? We are looking to reduce the carbon footprint of our home and water heating systems and are looking for expert accurate information . I hope that the CEEP will give useful affordable ideas help people with older homes make GHG smart decisions with regard to home and water heating. I hope there's a way for energy efficient buildings to allow for "fresh air" circulation. Whereas I do understand that Natural Gas is a Carbon emitter, it is substantially cheaper to heat a home with Natural Gas compared to electricity, not to mention we seem to have a LOT of power outages every year. Natural Gas isn't affected by power outages and gas fireplaces still work. Our recycling program should be including GLASS as it is the easiest item to recycle as all you need to do is crush it and remelt it, yet we don't. I do agree that more efficient housing should be built and bylaws/codes should be put in place to make this happen. Moving the recycling depot outside the city bounds does not help reduce GHG emissions related to solid waste - it does the opposite by putting us in our cars to drive further to recycle. Implement curbside pick up of all recyclable material with the new electric city vehicles being planned (if that can be done for medium to heavy duty vehicles such as refuse removal vehicles). While Hydro and FortisBC provide incentives for high efficiency equipment, City of NW should supplement with even more in order to incent home owners to retrofit their homes to reduce their GHG emissions. We talk about being a green city. Yet, so much of our green space/lawns are torn up due to the chaffer beetle. More needs to be done to eliminate this pest. This action still requires residents to having money to invest upfront. With the cost of homes today, this is difficult. Alternatively energy costs should be higher so they reflect the impact to the climate. Pollution should not be cheap. Updating the plan needs to be a minimal cost. Garbage, recycling, no plastics/styrofoam/straws and incentives need to be added here In regards to new buildings energy efficiency, with step code the wall assemblies will be wider however the current city bylaws measure floor space from outside wall to outside wall. Even though there are bonuses for step code they are only sufficient for compensating for the lower end of the step code criteria. This current way of measuring floor space is a deterrent to going 'above and beyond' and exceeding requirements. If floor space measurements were taken from outside of the wall sheathing to outside wall sheathing then builders would have the flexibility to install more outsullation, which is relatively cheap and provide quite a bit of 'bang for your buck' In regards to solid waste, mixing organic material with regular garbage results in methane release when at the 'dump' and it is very important for organics to be separated. Apparently there is a condo building in the quay area that doesn't even attempt to separate organics as the city fine is less than the compost service. Recommend increasing the fine to avoid this situation. Public Education is essential

Do I agree that it supports this “Bold Step”? Yes. Do I support this Bold Step should be the question.

This plan does not seem very concrete. Again, yes, but not enough. What about construction? So much waste is produced during construction, much of which can be avoided with proper provision and planning. Please recognize that all these costs will be borne by taxpayers. I truely believe that you will quickly push the average wage earner out of New Westminster with these agressive policies More of this. Add more recycling stations IE at Transit stops, improve processes and Facilities to handle City Recycling including transportation to the new United Boulevard facility if cgp facility will close. My son made a proposal to the city to add recycling containers at every Transit stop in the city and it was supported by city council but later rejected by engineering. I would like to understand the rationale away from that opportunity, and request that it be reconsidered so that New Westminster can take a leadership position in recycling opportunities across the city for all ages and types of commuters. These should only be done if they are cost saving measures or cost neutral over a 5-10 year amortization or if they are done in anticipation of climate change consequences which these measure will mitigate when they inevitabley occur. Should not be done as a minuscule, tiny, insignificant, and possibly counterproductive contribution from the City's contribution to global warming. not sure, this one seems a little vague This is the weakest and least defined step and actions do not appear to correspond with intent. Don't disregard adequate mechanical insulation in buildings, along with typical assessments of building envelope efficiency. no The decision made by the GVRD to consolidate waste disposal to Coquitlam is neither convenient or accessible. More waste will go into the garbage as people will have difficulties getting to the site. There is also a huge social aspect to the Recycling depot. People currently meet there and discuss new ways to recycle at the Depot. I can’t support this the way it is put at this time , the information is so limited here how could a person even have a opinion. How about creating a district energy system like Surrey? I don’t have enough back ground information on this item

Incentives for older multi-family buildings to instal EV charging capacity. I see no bold step here? These are just words no action? Recently the city has decided to close down a recycling drop off that’s been there for 30 plus years, to consolidate to a larger facility in Coquitlam where now I will have to drive in one of the worst traffic congested areas in new west. This was a bold action but not for the positive. I will now be throwing out most of my recycling in the garbage. The right action plan would have been to open more of these throughout the city not consolidate it to one large one for residents to drive to. Are we not trying to get people out of cars? I do not understand how exactly does this impact me. I live in an older building, and I do not have the funds to insulate it. I'd rather sell it and move away from.NW, if I am forced to spend huge cash,which I don't have, on a 90 yrs old house Require Lifecycle analysis of carbon emissions for all new buildings, including transportation impacts. public education is huge, however, it is also important to make sure that city trucks/vehicles are leading by example. I have noticed that the city trucks (tow truck, park vehicles, and one animal bylaw officer) often idles. In terms of conservation, is it possible to have a water recycling system for the spray parks? For example, we waste a lot of fresh water in the summer (when the spray parks are button initiated), and sometimes they are left running in the rain. I understand the importance to have opportunities for children and families to relax/play, however I feel this is a significant waste of water. Alternative options may be: limiting the water cycles when we have water restrictions? I think this budget needs to be bigger and more of a conversation with the public. How come we are removing our recycling depot? Would this not be a great way to help Although water conservation is a great environmental goal, it does not attribute to lowering of emissions, so it does not fit into the climate emergency goals. In regards to moving forward with CEEP actions to reduce emissions and create more energy efficient buildings, the only way to ensure that emissions are lowered is to have no natural gas in new or old buildings. The BC Step Code unfortunately does not ensure that buildings will not be built with natural gas. Going forward the city needs to ensure that the Step Code is met with low emissions pathways in order to greatly reduce building emissions. Bolder steps could be taken.... a whole systems thinking approach needs to be applied to this narrative... it should include not only energy efficiency but self containment such as laying the ground work for self sufficient homes and buildings including energy (solar infrastructure) and rainwater capture and re-use Increase budget for water conservation and enforce summer water restrictions. No The most important "bold" step is vague and incredibly underfunded. This part of the plan seems much vaguer to me and so I am not sure how you would complete this goal. Incentives are always a good method but I am unclear as to who the partnerships would be with and which demographic the public education piece would target. I am interested to see what types of measures will be suggested/implemented in this area. It is not clear what the CEEP Update and Implementation is focused-upon (where are the details?). For example, a feasibility study into a district heating project (like Surrey Central or SFU University) would be a great specific project. If "incentives" and "partnerships" means "the public purse pays for private home and building owners to upgrade their heating systems", then no thanks. Incentives should mean that there is a high enough carbon tax that it makes sense for people to upgrade their own heating system on their own dime. Subsidies are subject to free-rider problems that make them less cost-efficient than other methods. (Plus they penalize early adopters.) A building code that required sustainable heating/building practices is a good idea -- buildings last a long time so we need to do that early on. Public education is probably ineffective, and the province does enough of that anyways. City may be able to reduce carbon emissions from civic owned buildings, but buildings owned by private residents and developers can only be controlled by building code requirements and bylawws or for existing buildings only by educating them of the benefits of being carbon free or reduction. I would like to see metered water consumption

7) Do you agree that this Bold Step (#4 – Pollution Free Vehicles) supports the City's Climate Emergency Response? Respondents: 256

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 73.44% 188 No 19.53% 50 I do not have an opinion 7.03% 18 Total 100% 256

8) Do you have any comments related to this bold step? Respondents: 99

8) Do you have any comments related to this bold step?

Personal Information Don’t waste my tax dollars on this I'd like to learn more about what is done to recycle old batteries from EVs Maybe some way to encourage existing apartment/condo buildings to add charging stations to their parking garages? What about free meter parking for EV? I recall the California rolling blackouts. Not looking forward to seeing that again. We need to look at the entire grid first and see what upgrades need to be done before we put way more pressure on it. EV charging needs to be dramatically expanded quicker. Look at Car2Go's recent reason for pulling out of North America: "the lack of infrastructure to support new technology such as electric vehicles." Have electric vehicle charge station outlets mandatory in new condo and apartment buildings to help lower emissions too. Develop a bylaw to older building to install these electrical charge stations also mandatory. The City should implement policies that encourage the use of EVs such as preferred EV parking spots. 50% is a bold number for 2030. Great if it can be achieved. Step lightly and don’t invest too soon. It’s time to turn public charging into pay stations, ensure we are adding in transit and other tax levies to help pay for grid improvements. People will buy EVs The target seems to me to be aggressive. How will you track and measure this goal of 50 percent kilometers? Hard to understand the budget for the EV strategy and implementation. Seems quite high and details vague. The City should implement policies that encourage EVs such as preferred EV parking spots through the City. nothing This should not be the governments cost. Enable a better/easier process for private companies to install charger stations throughout the city. Subsidizing EV charging stations disproportionately benefits wealthy people who can afford electric cars in the first place. More money should instead be spent on increasing bike/public transit/walking infrastructure to encourage people to get out of their cars. Bikes? For those people who have contributed to solar energy with CNW - they are exempt from any extra taxes etc. I just wonder about all the mining involved in these electrical models. Is it really a long term, sustainable option if mass mining practices are used? I don’t know. it's a start. What happens to the batteries in these vehicles? Production of electric vehicles is not any more efficient than gas vehicles If we have the sea change of conversion of private and corporate vehicles to electric, the demand for electricity is going to increase DRAMATICALLY. Good to see that you're planning for it. I find myself wondering how smaller older apartments will get around to providing charging stations. Will you have to mandate it? Or will you put the stations on the road outside the apartments. Not convinced Adding more plugs is priority 4 in an emergency.

Require developers to install separately metered facilities in all garage parking spots. AGAIN, No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion. More EV charging stations in the street. Older condo buildings cannot have multi EV stations for all residents. Cost to retrofit would be too high for owners. Question: who covers the cost of recharging electric vehicles in public places? Given the dramatic shift needed and happening to EVs, it is surprising that it will take the utility 5 years just to update its plans! This should also happen over the next year, so that the significant investments needed in the city's distribution network can begin to keep up with anticipated demand. Do not turn out vehicles early just to go carbon zero. Finish the leases without penalty and then buy the vehicles that have the lowest operational costs including the lease. The city should be frugal not virtue signaling with cars Again not city government issue. Expanding bridges build more transit and people will leave cars at home Electric cars have twice the foot print when made. There is no long term studies showing environmental gain after you take in build and maintenance. Offer stronger incentives for car sharing companies like Evo and Modo to operate in the City: parking allowances, reduction of operating/street use fees, incentives to add fully electric car sharing service, installation of more charging stations... Remember that there needs to be a larger focus on getting people out of their cars entirely, not just getting them to switch to greener cars. Charging stations need to have a method of payment to recover the cost of installation, using & maintaining. Not enough EV's are being manufacture for the global requirements. I support but not at the expense of loosing more parking for residents and businesses I would like to see effort in reducing overall through city car journeys as these have a greater impact on pollution. Also would like to see e bike program implemented. Please add a strategy to subsidize homeowners to install electrical charging stations at their homes. As long as these strategies are implemented and not just used to fund consultants. The specific details are crucial. As mentioned in earlier comments, would be great to see more partnership with gas stations to make EV charging stations more plentiful, and not just on public property. It's the "perception" that they aren't readily available that is as much as barrier as the actual number of stations. I would trust that the EV stations will charge the users of this service. Consider reducing the number of vehicles. Introduce more positions which include walking such as monitoring parking meters. Hopefully this step will include level 3 chargers in New Westminster. EV development is a big component to improving the city

Rebates for EVs and ride sharing are required. Electric charging in neighborhoods or existing buildings Fully support this. I want to purchase an EV, but the lack of easy access to charging stations is definitely holding me back. This is a function that should be left to the provincial government. New West residents pay PST and income tax to the BC government to support the operation of BC Hydro. BC Hydro currently has initiatives to increase the availability of charging locations as well as to completely subsidize the purchase for individuals. This additional $3M should be returned to tax payers, which could potentially be used towards the purchase of a green vehicle. You don’t do what you could be doing towards this now. Why are your street chargers not exclusively for EV parking while charging? our popullation is too small to matter Modernize by getting rid of the new west electrical utility, admittedly getting council to give this up as a slush fund would be hard but how is a utility that relies on guys driving around in a red truck during an outage looking for the problem increase reliability that will be required in the future. It’s not bold, enough with the marketing speak. Our vehicles will not be zero emission as we have trade vehicles. Will there be an impact to those types of vehicle owners? People will continue to drive given the steepness of the hills in New West. Most multi-unit residential building are old enough that they do not have EV charging stations and do not have the capacity to add them without significant cost. Condo owner are not going to vote to pay for significant electrical upgrades in their building if they don't have an EV and people will not buy EVs unless there is a convenient way to charge them. Something of a chicken and egg problem that could use some cash incentives to stratas to install EV stations. I'd like to see robust bylaw requirements for electric vehicle charging capacity for new developments. The cost of suppling charging stations will be substantial. There should be a cost associated with charging a private vehicle at a publicly funded charging station to at least recoup some dollars. You need to provide incentives for the residents to have their EV's charge at home not out on the street. Don't forget about eBikes in this step! Please look at the available information on the destruction caused by lithium mining. Don't be part of this and don't make us be part of it! And why give rich people with electric vehicles taxpayer- funded charging? I am low-income and I am forced to subsidize these people. You could cut the City fleet by half to save us money and emissions. No unnecessary trips! Carpool! Walk! Find the cost savings within the current budget and spend it on these initiatives. New West has probs keeping the electrical grid working now, I doubt adding more electric vehicles, etc will improve it. EV charging strategy needs to focus on the provision of level 2 charging in apartment/condo buildings This is a sideshow to hide the regional costs of development our electrical utility is being burdened with. We are being positioned for absorption by the coming regional municipality. 30M on substation, no local recycling . . . The bankruptcy of NewWest will usher in this Metro takeover. It is very important for the city to update its electrical grid infrastructure to incorporate more renewable energy sources and support the electrification of the many things (vehicles, transport, home and water heating) that most New West residents use carbon based fuels for. Thank for the solar gardens! We need to stop focusing on electric vehicles. They have other environmental costs and are not affordable for a lot of people. I do agree that the infrastructure to allow for Electric Vehicles has to begin but to think that 50% of residents will be driving EV's in the next 10 years is HIGHLY unlikely and a pipe dream as there are very few affordable options when it comes to EV's on the market and MOST people do not buy brand new cars. Very optimistic but unlikely and I am one of those people that plan on buying an EV so it's not that I'm against them, I'm just being realistic. There are been a number of hydro power outages in the last 6 months - including a major transformer. Does the city really have the electric infrastructure capacity to meet the 2030 GHG emission reduction goals. Leveraging the natural gas/renewable gas pipeline infrastructure within the city, and the capital investment residents have already made for these appliances, needs to be part of the solution. I don't believe these are "bold" steps and should not be categorized as such. In combination with this funding, money needs to be invested immediately to get people out of motor / electric vehicles and using sustainable modes of transportation. Work with private sector property owners with properties within 400 m of SkyTrain stations to support new charging stations This is good on the part of the City. However, will the City install charging stations for its citizens? If so, where? Furthermore, how much will this project this cost? public EV charging should not be free after an appropriate time period. For level 2 & 3 chargers the pricing should be punitive to encourage people to charge up and then leave the station available for someone else. I think vehicles should be half electric and half fossil fuels, to keep options open in case of extreme climate events such as extreme cold, flooding and disruption of electrical grid. Not good to be heavily dependent on electric grid or fossil fuels. Balance needed. Do I agree that it supports this “Bold Step”? Yes. Do I support this Bold Step should be the question. It sounds very much like New Westminster wants to dictate to the residents the type of vehicle they can operate...? These types of decisions/policies are beyond the authority of a Municipal Govt. This is yet one more example of a Civic Govt wanting to tell the residents how they will live. One step too far in my opinion I would like to see the city take a leadership role by transitioning City vehicles to EV and demonstrating that they are viable Beyond small commuter vehicles. Also continue to provide free EV charging stations so as the cost of gasoline increases people will continue to move towards replacing gas vehicles with EV. Also to drive the transition towards e v i would support an increase in local gasoline purchase costs so that drivers purchase less gas in New Westminster, even to the point that gas stations would be reduced and being replaced with more EV charging stations to help drive that transmission These should only be done if there is a fairly immediate (5-10) year cost recovery. Not enough actionable steps/resources are being allocated here. This is one of the single most impactful steps that could be undertaken and “planning to improve the grid” is a weak plan. Shifting gas consumption by cars to electrical consumption will only increase the cost of electricity and increase the incidents of power outages. I'd like to see a grant opportunity for multi family housing to retrofit for more charging stations to allow for this. Currently, we can only plug in 3 cars in our garage (in a newer building) without overloading the circuits. The current grants don't offset enough cost to upgrade to make electric vehicles wide spread in New west (or elsewhere) I would agree with this if the people with these electric vehicle start putting in some more money . Right now as a typical resident I feel I’m subsidizing this group. The way it sits right now I don’t see where electric vehicles are paying their share of road taxes. So it’s great if you can afford to purchase one of these however that’s not the average citizen. Plan for more Urban Solar Gardens You need to encourage staff to take transit, I think it’s time to stop offering free parking to city staff. EV charging stations are needed now not later I agree, but EV prices have to half in order for mevto afford one. I do not agree the city forcing me to buy an EV which I cannot afford right now, unless they half the price I feel like this budget is very accommodating and I don't even understand what we are trying to achieve. The demographic of New Westminster is senior low to middle class workers. Frankly, we have more seniors in wheelchairs and electric scooters. I want to make sure that the people living here have ways to charge up and not have EV stations for people from other cities. We need to ensure that large developments are not taxing our electrical usage in the city. BC Hydro points to some of the greatest use coming from new condo developments. We need to ensure developers are working towards lessening this impact. Greenwashing.... more sustainable vehicles? A bold statement would be the city will transition to zero emission by.... More private sector investment in charging infrastructure especially condo projects. Clarification on "more sustainable options" No not happening quickly enough. Reasonable. I agree with this the EV charging stations are a practical step. As New West as it's own electrical service (which all residents must buy into), how does this impact the consumption and cost of electricity usage within our homes and public areas? The cost is currently higher than the comparable Hydro costs and will they increase? In addition, I recommend that he City implement a review step for all transportation projects to ensure they align with the MTP. It is excellent to see the city planning for the future and considering what electrical infrastructure improvements will be needed to allow for the simultaneous charging of multiple EV's in every household and business in the city. The future of Zero Emission Vehicles is rapidly approaching so New Westminster's electric utility needs to be ready. EV charging largely benefits existing automobile owners (i.e. wealthier residents). As a renter who takes transit only, I would prefer to support electrification of mass transit or EV cars for the city government and services only, NOT infrastructure that benefits rich private vehicle owners. To reiterate, I am not against EV purchases for the City fleet and especially (if possible) for noisy waste management vehicles, however, I am against providing charging stations for private EV owners care of public taxpayers. This just moves the tailpipe somewhere else. While electric vehicles certainly have a place in the future of transportation, focus should always be on improving and expanding public transit. This is great -- I wish I had seen this before I typed up my previous answers. We need to make sure that electric vehicle drivers pay for the charging infrastructure (maybe through usage fees), not the public. Somebody on a bike shouldn't have to pay Mr Tesla's bills. Bikes and e-bikes are true carbon free vehicles even more so than electric vehicles. As such, more resources should be allotted to establish a more complete and connected bicycle and mobility vehicles network as per the City Master Transportation Plan. Connections from the 7th Ave. Crosstown Greenway to the new main entrance to NWSS and the complex of Massey, Memorial, Mercer Stadium and Arena. A north -south connection from Downtown to Uptown adjacent or on 6th St. Connecting gaps from existing bike routes to all schools including the John Knox Christian (high) School on 12th St. More existing vehicle road space should be allocated to active, sustainable, mobility modes of transportation as per the declaration of Climate Emergency of 10% of existing road, reducing the number of cars on the roads and promoting active transportation especially with the forecast of a huge boom in the use of e-bikes in the very near future of 2023. City must implement a review system of all transportation projects to ensure they align with the MTP and annually confirm that it's goals are being met or exceeded. Scrap leaf blowers. funding EVs is counter to many of the City's other low car initiatives. While there's nothing wrong with having EVs, providing public funding to support them is not a cost effective strategy for addressing climate emergence (there's much more effective way to spend the same money). will people that use electric cars be charged when the use the EV charging stations?

9) Do you agree that this Bold Step (#5 – Carbon Free Energy) supports the City's Climate Emergency Response? Respondents: 253

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 75.10% 190 No 16.21% 41 I do not have an opinion 8.70% 22 Total 100% 253

10) Do you have any comments related to this bold step? Respondents: 78

10) Do you have any comments related to this bold step?

Oil and gas runs the world Smart meters would help with the smart grid as well, and give realtime updates to residents about their current energy use, which could drive conservation. Hydroelectricity is the primary source of electricity in BC. Spending $50 million in New West to become energy producers seems redundant. I forbid it. Urban solar Gardens with direct private investment from the colluding is great eco initiative. Queensbourogh development is likely required infrastructure that is not necessarily green but required infrastructure. Only good idea of all of them

DES seems like a great deal compared to the budget for the new pool and community centre. nothing Super expensive for not a lot of benefit. These are all great initiatives Very progressive initiative. Bravo.

Anyone who has contributed to the urban solar garden should be exempt from any increase in taxes. Sounds great! More community/school garden initiatives that supply fresh produce to the food bank and local shelters urban solar gardens? that's the best you can do? Bold and expensive! Have such systems proven cost-effective in other parts of the world? Production of solar panels produces a large amount of greenhouse gasses No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion. This is amazing!

Love the urban solar gardens and I’d like to see more of them. Other than the DES, the investment in local renewable energy appears to be extremely modest... the 100 kW provided to date would only power 1 or 2 fast charging stations. While there are challenges to local production, the city should be doing as much as it can and not assume that all the clean energy for building and car electrification will come from somewhere else - likely with major environmental impacts like Site C. Solar gardens are ugly expense and inefficient due to the earth's axis...you cant change that I am concerned with the cost to service our debt. $18 million per year is an enormous amount for a small community. District energy is an unknown cost and effectiveness. What type of fuel will you be using? These issues should be done across regions and with feds and provincial government funding! New Westminster is not a city state ! Fix our roads, pick up our garage , support safe community The Sapperton DES has long been part of the plan. Mentioning it here makes it sound like it's a new thing in response to the Climate Emergency. I'd definitely like to see more projects like the Urban Solar Gardens and am interested what/where these opportunities exist. The City has been looking at this in Sapperton for over 10 years thus not a new BOLD step. Queensborough is overpopulated now. Too much building, no yards, no gardens anymore. Sad what has happened there We also need a recycling depot in New West. No I do not think the solar gardens are worth the investment for the climate that we have here. From this entire summary, I am not sure how much of the budget is being spend on this initiate instead of the normal things. A better presentation would be to explain what is being cut in order to meet this ideals, not if we as citizens think an ideal is a good thing to aim for. The cost needs to be better understood. The solar gardens are great? Is there conversation with the school board to do the same on all the new schools they are building? DE will never recoup it's cost. The other 2 are good ideas. A lot of money. Remember us taxpayers. - I love the idea of capturing energy through sewage. - However, I'd like more info about how efficient solar generation would be in all the seasons Again, lets use the Hydro electricity that is already available and stop paying for solar panels that are inefficient and unnecessary. other forms of energy is always a good thing to clean our own air It’s not a bold step, shuttling down the utility and merging with BC Hydro would be bold. Invest in a way to expand the DES to existing buildings and neighborhoods. At the very least, retrofit large energy consuming institutions such as Royal Columbian, Collages and Law Courts, etc. The more solar generation, the better! Niice idea but I doubt a financial benefit can be realized. The cost is about $1000/person ($3000 to $4000 per household). Does the City have any financial discipline? DE will cost the City millions and not make any return on investment. You will still have to burn some sort of fuel to generate the required amount of heat. Q Boro Substation is a must along with one in Sapperton to accommodate the new development by the Skytrain stations. I wonder about the capital cost of this step vs. the benefit given that BC already has ample hydro generated electric power. Perhaps I don't understand how a DES or solar has lower total GHG. My worry is that $53M for the District Energy system could be better spent electrifying buildings that are currently using Natural Gas. Good on you for heat recapture. Forget the solar power except for tiny things. It's inefficient. Are the developers paying for this? Or, tax payers? Solar energy is nowhere near replacing fossil fuel-generated electricity in the world. How nice BC relies on hydro. Very generic application of information. There will be no reduction of anything. This system would be for new developments, increasing impact. Try again. Excellent - we have bought 20 panels in the existing solar gardens and think that this is a great way for residents to invest in renewable energy for New Westminster. We fully support more community owned solar gardens and expanded solar generation!!! Sapperton District Energy System - This is an excellent idea provided that the extracted energy will be used for heating, not electrical generation. The latter would be a significant waste of energy due to the inherent inefficiency of converting a low thermal gradient to electrical power. Excellent otherwise. Sapperton District Energy System - Sounds like a great idea. Can this be expanded to produce even more energy to offset costs for residents instead of just large corporations, Urban Solar Garden's are an EXCELLENT IDEA! Queensborough Substation while it may be a requirement for the specified reason. I would say MOST of the power used there are by big businesses like the Casino and Translink and the large mall there. Why not get these companies to fit a majority of the costs since they are the primary benefactor in reality and the residents are just the offset bonus. See prior comments. How much are residents going to have to pay for these upgrades? Our NW hydro rate is already significantly higher than our FortisBC natural gas rate. Is the ROI on the DES for Sapperton worth the capital investment? Reduction of 1700 vehicle equivalents does not seem like much on an annual basis. Let's not forget that much of the GHG emission in our city is due to the transient nature of the vehicle transportation through our city from other suburbs. How will the residents (residential and commercial) customers in Sapperton be expected to connect into the DES? Who is paying for that? As mentioned previously, there needs to be finding going towards sustainable modes of transportation. Solar gardens at all schools please So cool! District energy in Sapperton that is sewer based would be amazing. Do I agree that it supports this “Bold Step”? Yes. Do I support this Bold Step should be the question. From my understanding, solar panels have a limited lifespan, and the material are not 100% recyclable. So I am seeing a long term impact. I don't believe solar power is an appropriate energy source for our region, but sewer heat recovery sounds interesting. I would like to see more use of wind turbines. This could be done creatively like art installation or put on roofs of buildings Enable homes and businesses to sell energy back to the grid. Empower residents and investors to pursue alternative energy sources, rather than only being a provider. These should only be done if there is a fairly immediate (5-10) year cost recovery. Urban Solar Garden is a huge waste of time and resources...the City will never recover all the costs, and this energy just replaces other renewable electrical energy so has not benefit to climate change. DES is a waste of money - move to larger solar installations and subsidize residential solar! District Energy System is a great step. Very important. Let's put BC workers to work on all these projects and seek social/economic sustainability as we move towards greater ecological sustainability. Encourage commercial/warehouse solar instillations also. Queensborough needs another access point for increased residential developments created by these facilities other than the one that currently exists. Why would we build a substation on a flood plain? Without climate change it’s not a good idea. Subsidizing solar power for all home owners allowing homes across the city to start generating their own electricity. Share your expertise with the City of Burnaby to turn the Riverview Golf Course into an Urban Solar Garden. How about offering residential homes rebates on Solar? Instead of solar garden where we don’t have land for. I agree with the substation. I feel the cost of the DES is way to expensive, for marginal benefit. Many of the examples given thus far sound like regular infrastructure maintenance or upgrades, with a tenuous tie into climate at best. this sounds good. Queensborough has so many issues that need to be addressed. I feel like it is developing faster than the city is aware of and we are being very reactive to this growth. For example, these neighborhoods are constantly dealing with traffic, road repairs (along ewen, boyd, dewerent). These residents seem to be forgotten and they put up with the most inconveniences. I think an urban solar garden is important, but I would prioritize that space to having something we need at this time and moment. FOr example, what about a playground or proper dog park in Queensborough? Should we be incentivizing our businesses to create "solar gardens" on the roofs (using height) rather than replacing precious park space? I think that Pier Park could be a great candidate for a solar garden, City Hall, the Fire Department roofs, the new Highschool can partake in development, etc. Is the City doing anything to address the fact that, according to BC Hydro, new condo builds use almost twice as much electricity per square foot as older buildings? The City needs to take bold steps to address this!! solar energy implementation lacks focus and is taking too long; these are not BOLD steps. rather wimpy, really. As a Queensborough resident I am delighted to see that our community (which we often feel is "forgotten") is being included in the financial planning for the city of New Westminster. Keep up the good work. Great ideas and sizeable budget allocation. More creative initiatives over the long-run at all the New West Skytrain stations should also be explored. Instead of having individuals sponsor solar panels, maybe the electrical utility could pay for them? The DES should be further expanded to include other areas of the City as well where feasible. Promote the use of solar energy to all property owners and provide incentives and education for their implementation. Sell Electrical to BC Hydro. Concentrate on core competencies.

But where will the 53 million come from?

11) Do you agree that this Bold Step (#6 – Robust Urban Forest) supports the City's Climate Emergency Response? Respondents: 249

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 79.52% 198 No 15.26% 38 I do not have an opinion 5.22% 13 Total 100% 249

12) Do you have any comments related to this bold step? Respondents: 91

12) Do you have any comments related to this bold step?

We don’t need a response. Plant a tree. It is a good thing but it’s not going to change the weather. More trees and greenspace are needed downtown! Hyack Square is a particularly depressing spot, but the whole downtown is very concrete heavy. Love to see more trees

Very important step. Have trees, grasses and shrubs that can withstand weather for rooftop gardens, and areas where people could visit, and make a unique destination for travelers, and residents of New Westminster. This should be priority #1, immediately implanted and fast tracked to hit the target by 2025. Improved livability. No big deal Current bylaws discourage owners from planting trees. The current bylaws pass all costs on to owners with trees on properties and place limits on future land use. What kind of trees, where and will there be subsidies and/ or rebates?

More money here! Do you really mean this? Then why have you been promoting so much building development? This makes no sense. nothing Didn't Surrey just remove a bunch of trees from Holland park to make it safer? How will the city make an urban forest safe? I think the tree replanting/replacement is a good idea however the 1 to 2 when the replacement not "necessary" needs to be reviewed. Trees that are too close to foundations and electric lines should be 1 to 1 or 1 to 0 if the property already has a high number of trees - maybe a tree to sq ft ratio? 27% is not enough Anyone who wants to build a house should not be allowed to dig up existing trees older than 35 years (for example) and if do, then have to pay a $10,000 fine. Current tree policy is far too restrictive for residents. It deters residents from planting new trees. It encourages residents to remove trees before they become protected. Emphasis should be on planting more trees on public property, not penalizing residents that have trees and want or need to change them. a few trees is bold? please. Home owners with yards, vegetable gardens etc should be able to choose fruit trees and replace evergreens if they wish. Or, for example, if a conifer is shading too much of their vegetable patch they could remove it and pay to plant a tree elsewhere in the city. Finally a green goal to tackle the climate emergency! This should either move to the top and have the top budget or All the goals need to emphasize the use of green infrastructure to address climate change. All the other goals have been fighting climate change with more climate change through grey infrastructure and are sub-optimal use of scarce resources to efficiently tackle climate emergency and reflect the incremental change to the budget rather than the transformation that is needed during an emergency. Need to address chafer beetle on a community level - not on individual case by homeowner.

Are you actually going to do this? How does encouraging laneway houses fit with this plan? No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion Questions for further consideration: What if parks were connected by a pedestrian-only pathway? What would this look like? Could existing trees become trail ('path') markers? New trees? Combination of existing and new? The Urban Forest exists. It is just painfully sparse. It should be what is dominant about the city (or any city). Are residents prepared to adapt to live in a Robust Urban Forest? When creating a car-light community with (hopefully) car-free streets it would be a good idea to improve urban forestry by planting trees in the space previously taken up by cars! Trees are an essential part of sequestering carbon and a broad tree canopy will be an important measure for adapting the city to hotter summers, but 10 million trees (not the 13000 in the current plan) are needed to do the city's part in planting the one trillion trees needed globally to absorb enough carbon to keep temperatures below 2C. As only 1/10 of this number is physically possible in the city, even if it was entirely bulldozed and replanted, the socially responsible, world-leading thing for the city to is to finance planting 10 million trees in poor countries, such as Africa. Light intrusion needs to be a consideration in the enhancement of natural areas. Bugs and birds need the dark Trees in the city help solve heat island effect, if the mayor and council comes up with it now, then they shouldn't run the city in the first place. This is the only good step that is worth the money I hope that the environment enhancement & biodiversity initiatives include invasives removal and native plantings. Would love to see more green roofs as well

Please make more room in the budget for the City Arborists to visit trees at risk. The proposal is vague. What species of trees are to be planted? Trees with extensive root systems will damage sidewalks and subsurface infrastructure. Again, the details are crucial. Sadly I have seen many trees in our neighbourhood taken down to make way for new houses. Trees that homeowners neglect (ie no pruning or upkeep) so that they have a stronger argument as to why they should be cut down. It's a tough one to combat but would love to see stronger bylaws and penalties. Also not sure if it's possible to do a proactive positive approach - inventory of large trees on private property, and mailout every 4 years to remind people to maintain their trees (tips, upcoming workshops, recommended tree companies) etc. Sometimes people just don't get around to it and the friendly reminder might be enough to get them to act. Although I agree oversight is needed for trees on private property the process to apply for removal permits is cumbersome and at times quite unreasonable. It also appears to be biased to those willing to pay more. Please plant as many trees as possible Why not get the community involved? Tree sponsorship and locals doing some of the planting reduces costs & creates community buy-in. Should include a more robust tree cutting policy. its a city theres enough trees in the outyer areas What is bold about this? How about stopping selling lad to developers and replanting those area with trees, that would be bold. I have seen a lot of dead trees (fire hazards) all over the city and believe this is partly from the city's 'must never cut down a tree' policy. If you really want more trees, make the developers stage all of their building on their own property instead of closing off streets and sidewalks for months or years. This would make the building have a smaller footprint and when completed, they could plant the staging areas with trees. There also seems to be a very large expanse of treeless grass at City Hall. Maybe some action close to home would be good. Much thought should go into the location of any new trees. It is currently problematic working around the existing tree canopies and root structures and by problematic I mean it drives up project costs. Personally I would not be willing to plant a tree on my private land knowing the power of the existing tree bylaws. Bravo!! Good project, highly effective at moderate cost and enhances the streetscape of the city. The City can't keep the trees it has alive at the moment, more staff???? Costs???? The budget for this is WAY, WAY too small to make a meaningful impact. The city has a goal of 10,000 trees planted this decade. At $2k to establish each tree (rough estimate) that will require $20M over 10 years. Is the city actually serious about achieving these goals or is it just nice talk? The last half decade on this issue has only been talk with little action. Budget is more of the same. Wherever the city plants trees, twice as many are planted as can thrive. Why waste our money? We will have to pay Very Highly-Paid people to come back and take every other one out later, like thinning carrots. Have some sense, please. I can't support the amount of water used on them, either. It's unsustainable. To achieve the goal of 27% we need to look at opportunities on private land. There isn't enough available planting space for trees on public lands to reach the goal of 27%. There needs to be more incentives for property owners and developers to retain trees during their development as well as planting more than the minimum required. Implementation of a storm water management bylaw is also a huge factor in retention and future health of our urban forest. Figure out how to do it with less taxpayer money.

Trees are good, but you also need prudent forest management. I believe that the city's current tree policy and penalties tends to discourage property owners from wanting trees to grow. Large trees can be a hazard on a small city lot, as well as a financial liability. City has very poor track record on maintaining trees. No local recycling but you want residents to plant and maintain more. Eating your cake again. New Westminster lacks the large natural green spaces that Coquitlam, Surrey and Burnaby have (Burnaby Mountain, Burnaby lake, Colony Farms Lands. The city needs to increase the amount of natural green spaces and river shore areas to increase habitat for birds, native pollinators, fish and invertebrates. I would like to a see the city develop a policy of rewilding the banks of the lower Brunette River to increase habitat for birds and juvenile salmon. The Brunette River is a natural corridor between the connected greenspaces of the Burnaby Central Valley and the Fraser River. Many of the greenspaces in the city are overrun with invasive species - for example, the Glenbrook Ravine has a horrific overgrowth of blackberry. I would like to see the City have an invasive species removal team that could work with volunteers and educate residents on invasive species. I would also like the city to have a policy require plant nurseries within the city not to sell plants that are on the invasive species list (Invasive Species Council of Metro Vancouver), or at a minimum, require the nurseries to label the plants as invasive so that consumers can make educated choices. Knotweed is a very problematic invasive plant and the city should have a policy about how to control and remove it. Stop TMX pipeline!!!!!!! No pipelines in Brunette Creek! Make sure trees are planted first in high density neighbourhoods, not near homes that have backyards and access to greenspace. As stated previously, it's one thing to plant trees. It's a whole other matter to have a lack of useable grass/lawns across the city due to the chaffer beetle infestation that so many of us face. Let's deal with that pest in a long-term, sustained manner so we have green space (i.e. chemicals - not nemotodes which do not work) New Westminster needs more greenspaces. It is losing another soccer field to the new Aquatic Centre. If we're serious about climate change, trees should be given a sacred status. They have been disrespected and cut because they have been abundant in the past and interfere with development. This needs to stop. Being bold means upsetting people that want trees removed. This doesn't go far enough. Stopping trans mountain pipeline in Hume Park. Supporting significant opposition, at least. Indigenous teachings, walks and medicines. Decreasing invasive species and clean ups. Planting potted Christmas trees program More trees in Brow of the Hill please. This is great! It will also help beautify the city. Please ensure that there are more female trees than males planted. Presently most trees planted are male and as such there are not enough female trees to capture the pollen, thereby increasing allergies etc. I always urge the planting of native trees. I realize that non-natives are needed as well, but I hope that as many natives can be included in the planting as possible. Trees should be encouraged as good for adaption and mitigation, however consideration should be given to value. Our experience with building a laneway house is that the city tree process will cost $8,000. As housing affordability is also an important issue recommend reassessing process high value steps. Do I agree that it supports this “Bold Step”? Yes. Do I support this Bold Step should be the question. I would like to see more drought tolerant and native trees. I would also like to see less SFH that cover most of their yard space with concrete. This puts extra pressure on infrastructure and with extreme weather events to be expected we should be protecting our water permeable soil This should be done regardless of climate change. Needed for a live-able and healthy commumity I think the brunette river should be a targeted area to clean up and develop a trail with removal of invasive plants a priority. You will see less people being involved in the gardening activity because they will think twice before transporting the yard greens from their garden/lawn all the way to Coquitlam. I will be one of them. I lied earlier - this is the weakest step and actions to boot. Should look closely at invasive ivy in Glenbrook Ravine, which is having deleterious effects on the trees there. Some agreement should be reached with Onni to be able to do city-led project in ivy removal. To date efforts at removing invasive species have been volunteer-led (with City support) and focused on blackberries but it would seem that the ivy is the more important focus. Priority for city trees should be native species that have been shown to increase pollinators, birds and insects. See Vancouver Bird Strategy. See www.pwlf.ca publications for NW Breeding Bird Atlas. reduce mowing and/or promote natural and pollinator vegetation where possible eg on median strip on Queen's Ave. between 11th and 12th Street. Plan/plant for better succession of trees where this has been neglected eg in Queen's Park. I agree with more green space, but do not understand homes that are being built with a completely concreted back yard - no trees or landscaping. It appears that any tree can be removed for a price in order to build a huge oversized square box. (unless you're in Queens Park) How can a huge healthy tree be replaced by a stick. You have to nurture the tree in order for it to grow, which is not something the city can overlook. Most of these homes have extra illegal suites. Maybe the policy needs to be looked at again before the 50 year tree is removed. Make sure we plant both male and female trees to reduce pollen in the air as well I also think we have gone from one extreme to 180 degrees to the other when it come to protection of trees . I think we need to treat our citizens a bit different than the developers . The city also needs to be a good example in this area , just look at the trees along 6 th ave between 6th and 8th st . I’ll leave it at that. Tree planting is a good opportunity for community involvement. Let’s start with city hall and the waste that property creates, how about moving to the Anvil and creating high density on that location and creating a shadow on Queens Park for once! this would be my number one priority. We do not value this, and we don't even have any natural spaces left. So many animals and plants are losing out because of us, and this area needs to have a greater voice in our city planning and discussion. I have noticed great improvements with the brunette river along Hume Park, and maybe this should be extended into the Industrial Area (Braid/ Bailey Bridge). We once had salmon and beavers. We also need to focus on: -the Glenbrooke Ravine; there are WAY too many invasive and it is suffocating the life in there. -dykes/ditches in Queensborough; this is a dumping site for many residents and we have resident herons and ducks who depend on this area We need to take away parking spaces and put trees and walking spaces. Whoever said walking spaces can't be green? I would love to see when the standard wheelchair and strollers were just as effective on grass. That way we can make pedestrian spaces grass instead of concrete. Plant more trees! Have a purchase system so residents can plant approved trees and purchase them from the city in a group buy program!! Plant more female trees to help address pollens in the air! What city lands? The city should have secured food security such as not allowing development of all farm land in queensboro.... urban street trees will not sequester much carbon This is, once again, not a bold step but just maintenance. what about initiatives for green roofs on towers, shopping areas, etc? Vague Green spaces are very much a bonus to any community. I would like to see Green Spaces as being highly visible as one travels across our community. As the city moves forward with adding more trees with would be great if they can ensure that what they plant is drought tolerant. With longer, hotter summers predicted moving forward having trees and shrubs that respond poorly to drought (ie sending out dozen of suckers) or that require watering etc are best avoided. Where possible all greening should employ local species. More diversity. Rather than planting a row of same species as is currently the practice, plant trees that protect each other from blights. The dead trees on 6th Ave. and other streets must be a priority. Moody park needs more trees! I would like to see an urban Forest along the train tracks. This would muffle the sound and block the look of the trains. Sustainability is not just about the environment but about the environment we live in. It can be very noisy in downtown New West with all the pile driving and the trains. It affects the mental health of animals and people. More urban forests are good -- also trees along regular residential streets which provide shade would be great. Encourage residents to volunteer on this initiative on public spaces and on their own properties. Volunteer work in this initiative not only saves the City on Labour costs, but also encourages resident community involvement in their efforts to reduce climate change and reduce pollution and generate pure oxygen for the planet and atmosphere.

13) Do you agree that this Bold Step (#7 – Quality People-Centered Public Realm) supports the City's Climate Emergency Response? Respondents: 245

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 70.20% 172 No 23.67% 58 I do not have an opinion 6.12% 15 Total 100% 245

14) Do you have any comments related to this bold step? Respondents: 98

14) Do you have any comments related to this bold step?

I don’t see any temp reductions due to this plant more trees that can grow tall and provide shade Have more grass, and trees on the concreate areas of Westminster Pier park especially near the volleyball area, and the shipping container "W". Would be nice to have a sign that reads New Westminster for photos like other cities. Also replacing the aging railings near the volleyball and W with a continuation of the newer and cleaner looking railing just like before the park, so it doesn't look so trashy, and rough looking. This would also prevent people from putting locks on the fences too. A lot of money spent here. None of it in Queensbourogh. Make Queensbourogh residents tax exempt for these programs. Not sure artificial turf and the plastics and rubbers that get spread into the environment as a result should be included as an example. Time to pedestrianize some streets. Columbia and 6th st uptown. Start with just weekends then 7 days/week once people have adapted. Both streets have parallel routes, no reason for there to be cars in shopping areas. Landscaping for control of rain water should be demonstrated. While important almost 8M seems pricey for a small community for public realm over the 4 year budget cycle. I think spending half of that and keeping taxes flat makes more sense. Some of these are good ideas but dont really seem connected to emissions reduction (e.g. turf field, queens park farm planning, etc.) If you really believe this, then anytime you dig up a road, a bicycle lane should go in. nothing I hope the riverfront vision is cycling inclusive Westminster Pier to Sapperton is an essential connection which should be expedited to contribute to pedestrian mobility and to draw daytime tourism dollars to the area. 10% is not enough Make it for families and teenagers - have a place to hang out!

I think public art should also incorporate environmental purpose. Not just for the eyes.

Not bold enough. Car-Free Columbia should be a priority, and completed within 5 years this ain't bold. Budget more to make Sixth Street a "Great Street" sooner rather than later. All these aspirational plans need specific, measurable goals and deadlines. This missed the mark and is clearly just climate washing existing initiatives. Public realm needs to support community resilience that with heart waves, floods, energy disruptions and droughts due to climate change demand refuge areas and more creative use of public space to foster community resilience. Adding in barriers in problem areas of rat running to thwart people passing thru from cheating to get around traffic jams No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion If making the 6th & 6th (Uptown) area pedestrian-only is too ambitious, how about reducing existing roadways to 'one way' roads? Please keep in mind that "step free" access is needed when building these pathways/stairs given both new west's aging population and growth in young families/stroller use with developing condo and housing projects. Yes please do this - especially the sustainable landscape demonstration projects - potentially even expanding this to include rewilding our cities? This should also include making the areas mentioned car-free While parks and public realm contribute greatly to community livability, and support economic development, it's quite a stretch to say that things like a pollinator pasture, artificial turf playing field or great streets have much to do with climate action. You won’t do it, developers won’t allow you Great ideas, you just have to understand the climate change is as old as our planet. Thinking that you can stop it or slow it down is down right childish. Accellerate the Riverfront Connection. This project is taking too long! Be bolder: make it minimum 20% reallocation of roadspace to car alternatives. Add e-bike share service. Add a bike/walk lift up 4th street to make this hill easier for cyclists. Good to see continued planning term used as most of this is not new.

I think these projects are too ambitious and costly. We need to pull back our spending until we pay off already borrowed money. 10% target seems low. Would be good to target pedestrianization of a key city street or at least snipping a street to prevent through traffic. I do not support this as a climate action initiative. This should be under a social improvement heading. These are projects based on community infrastructure and don’t actually help the environment. While great projects, they aren’t going to reduce our emissions. This is the case of 'build it and they will come". So glad to see the City moving on these types of initiatives to reclaim public space. If you wait until everyone's happy before doing things, you'll never do anything. Develop the public space, everyone will see how great it is and then everyone will forget what all the fuss was about. Please also consider river access for small boats and canoes and fishing at various points along the River. Slow the traffic down. We need to take road deaths and injuries seriously. Vision zero. All private parties benefiting from positive changes to infrastructure should be encouraged to sponsor instead of spending our funds. Doesn’t relate to a climate emergency but would be nice to have in the city What about plans to clean up the river? The Fraser should not be as polluted as it is. Co-ordinate with other municipalities to clean up the river & safeguard salmon. Oh, and you misspelled centred. This is Personal Information you know - no American English required. Really looking forward to Riverfront Vision. I'm all for people centric spaces; however, we better ensure that a 10% reduction in space that serves motor vehicles does not lead to a 10% increase in traffic congestion. Sky train can unlikely support such an increase in traffic, and I see no other imminent improvements in traffic. With the replacement of the Pattullo bridge, we are likely to see even more car traffic, not less. This means more idling cars at our traffic lights. I like parts of this step, but I don’t think it’s climate related. Seems like a basic job of cities. I’d like to see pedestrian focused design of all new builds and renovations, wider sidewalks. The River Market/Quay area build has not incorporated pedestrian access well. That would be how people centred would influence climate change. we need more roads for future growth Great, make it harder to get around this city with no plan for how to ease the congestion you’ll create. I can see why an automatic tax increase was needed to fund this ‘plan’ Stairs to Front Street at 4th are a waste of time. That's a really dodgy area. Would love to see Pier Park connected to Sapperton Landing (and to Foreshore Park in Burnaby). Streetscape designs sound good - so long as they don't end up as the smoker's hangout like the pocket park on 6th and Belmont did. (And still is!) This is FAR under budgeted. According to Patrick Johnstone, 26.6% of New Westminster's developable land is pavement (source: https://patrickjohnstone.ca/2014/08/how-much-road-is-enough.html). I don't see how anywhere near 10% of this space gets re-allocated by 2030 without making serious investments NOW. I've been told that converting a single block of road space back to a natural form can be $1M. The budget numbers here should be more than doubled. The attempt of a park on Belmont Street uptown was a disaster. I don't believe the city is prepared to take on these steps. Hard to see a connection here. By the way, what is it with the "bold step" branding? Sounds like an ego trip. An expensive ego trip. Really half a million dollars for a stair case?? I agree with more green space, but most of NW City Council's ideas of artistic improvements are puerile. A bunch of benches and Pre-K primary coloured designs are demeaning. Parks and street improvements hardly qualify as a response to the Climate Emergency Research required. Old ideas. Fail. Alll great! please see my previous comments about creating natural parks instead of gardens or playing fields as well as having a staff member/team who work on identifying and removing invasive species from New Westminster green spaces. i have environmental concerns about artificial fields. Looking forward to the completion of the Riverfront Vision! Areas like the Brow of the Hill and Queensborough are taking a lot of density and should be priority areas for public spaces. See other comments. The focus cannot just be on Uptown and downtown. What about the liveability and walkability of other residential areas of the city. Transportation infrastructure (i.e. shuttles or bike routes) need to enable us to get to these other locations safely and easily. With the number of very large hills in the City, it is unrealistic to think that those of us outside of Uptown and downtown will come to these locations. Artificial turf fields are not sustainable or good for the environment. I don't believe the city can achieve this at their current pace of transformation / re-allocation. Rather than wait till 2030 to say the plan failed, try setting a target for 2023 or 2025 and achieving it. 10% in 10 years isn't enough to combat a crisis. This isn't bold enough and spend too many election cycles. Make demonstration projects like pollination, local species, tree planting, etc mandatory for all park building. This also helps build community :) Re: 4th Street Feature Stairway The City has recently torn down the "sitting area" along Front Street to make way for this new initiative. However, the City has not explained how or why the previous set- up was inadequate. Without such an explanation, this looks like a waste of taxpayer dollars. As most of the city is private land the idea of encouraging sustainable landscaping could provide a lot of value and potentially engage more citizens in thinking deeper about climate change. Also, as more citizens live in smaller places without direct access to outdoor space, creating outdoor spaces that meet many needs are so important. Do I agree that it supports this “Bold Step”? Yes. Do I support this Bold Step should be the question. Connecting people to retail increases their consumption of goods, which is not good for climate change. Yes, but more aggressive in this area too. Too much of New West is dominated by vehicle traffic, making it unpleasant and even dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. I think this issue needs even more attention. Even though many drivers won't like it at first, prioritizing pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation makes for a much healthier city and much more effective transportation. I submitted this comment to another question, but I would encourage New Westminster to reconsider adding recycling stations at all transit stops and other high traffic areas around New Westminster. It must become common place for people to have access to recycling stations, as we currently do expect to have access to garbage containers. Take another look at the new West City 101 program where this proposal was submitted by some grade 12 students. This should be done regardless of climate change because it is for a liveable and healthy community which energizes people so they and advocate for real climate change mitigation.ur See last comment. It is unclear how this step supports climate action and how these actions fall under this step. While the initiatives proposed dont sound bad on the surface, they do not tie to this step’s goals both is it clear how they help the environment. Strongly agree with naturalized gardens. Could city make native plants available to residents? Mixed shrub and canopy layers have highest biodiversity. Work with other stakeholders to re-use/repurpose the old "gas plant" site on 12th street south of 3d Ave. Do not build stairs - build a ramp. MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE FOR EVERYONE. I’m not sure why this is under climate emergency. Maybe if we want to get rid of cars stop building all these high rises . I'm not sure about the addition of more turf fields. Research shows that the rubber pellets used in turf fields are cancer causing and harmful to our children. I would hope that any new fields would be built in a safe and healthy manner, and be as eco friendly as possible. Plan for car-free Columbia Street downtown and 6th Avenue Uptown. You know what would really be great??? Repairing the horrible state of New Westminster's streets! Take a look at 3rd Ave, 4th Ave, 10th Street in uptown and Queen's Park, for example. Everywhere a city crew goes to do work, they leave an uneven, bumpy patchwork of asphalt! 4th Avenue near Queen's Park is one of the worst streets, and 3rd Ave not much better? Why is it impossible to do this work properly, and yet here we are talking about all the improvements that will be done to other public spaces. Simcoe park’s tennis court needs to be upgraded to same level as the ones in the queen’s park and Moody park Quayside community center process?? I agree with the stairway. I prefer to keep and or increase the beautiful flower gardens, I do not agree with reducing the parking spaces. How much is 10% of space exclusive to road vehicles? The examples given don't sound like they will be reducing road vehicle space. however, if you think that installing "parklets" like we have beside Tim Hortons on 6th and Belmont/ E.Columbia street in sapperton, then NO. This is a waste of space and money. We need to be considerate of how our streets are designed. For example, when planting trees in the boulevards, how come they are always under powerlines? The trees need better watering, and many are suffocated with asphalt covers. We are so regressive sometimes, and this is an area to consider. Small victories, smart decisions. I don't agree with the expense of the 4th street overpass. Please make more spaces for youth to be outside ie: Build some simple concrete walls for kids to practice wall balls for lacrosse and to play ball games that include the wall. Have more outdoor basketball courts. Make a permanent mountain bike course at one of the city parks. Be bold and use what other cities are doing to encourage youth to be outdoors. I don’t see how any of these address the climate emergency I would like to have more than just the plan for the riverfront vision Addition of Car Free Streets hardly a bold step. Front street is a long way from becoming vital, although the work done so far is looking charming. Why have cars and parking there at all? Should be 100% pedestrian. It appears that planned project are being folded into the idea of a bold plan to address climate change. A little too much politicking in this plan. But I would put it as a lower priority if there were limited funds to complete all of the Bold Steps. These are fine. Please however, ensure that such projects do not simply contribute to the further gentrification of New Westminster, by ensuring that there are accessible public washrooms, water fountains and also that developers instead of contributing to just parks, contribute to affordable housing in future. This requires city staff negotiating hard with developers on ensuring provisions of affordable housing (social housing, non-profits, coops, co-housing, etc.). Also a better und understanding that trees are the lungs of the Earth. Cement bunkers along the river could be replaced by trees, Willows are an obvious selection, withe birch and poplar also good choices. These will help prevent flooding, something which cement bunkers are woefully inadequate. This i see as paramount to climate change. I don’t know how bold this is but I have seen walkways that are integrated right into the water meaning they hang off the land in sort of a cantilevered fashion and I thought it looked really pretty. This all seems fine, but it's a bit of a stretch to cram it in with the rest of the climate related stuff. Just do it because it makes a better city. The majority of the 10% of street space currently being used by motor vehicles to be re-allocated, should be used for active, sustainable, mobility transportation purposes. Existing public realm spaces are being under used by the public and active transportation will increase in leaps and bounds and the City will not be able to meet the demand if more road space is not allocated. Great streets are not populated by drug-addled reprobates. I don't have a problem with these projects, but its not clear how they address Climate Emergency. Perhaps the funds should come from a different budget? love this one!

15) How important (to you) is each Bold Step (as it supports the City's climate emergency response)? Respondents: 225

Not at all Somewhat Very Neutral Important Total important important important Carbon Free 10.45% 12.27% 13.64% 35.00% 28.64% 100% Corporation (23) (27) (30) (77) (63) (220) 13.45% 8.97% 11.66% 23.77% 42.15% 100% Car Light Community (30) (20) (26) (53) (94) (223) Carbon Free Homes 9.68% 8.76% 16.13% 36.41% 29.03% 100% and Buildings (21) (19) (35) (79) (63) (217) Pollution Free 8.18% 10.45% 10.45% 35.91% 35.00% 100% Vehicles (18) (23) (23) (79) (77) (220) 8.33% 7.41% 9.72% 37.04% 37.50% 100% Carbon Free Energy (18) (16) (21) (80) (81) (216) 7.21% 9.46% 6.76% 27.03% 49.55% 100% Robust Urban Forest (16) (21) (15) (60) (110) (222) Quality People- 8.93% 9.82% 11.61% 33.48% 36.16% 100% Centred Public Realm (20) (22) (26) (75) (81) (224)

16) Has the City missed any important goals to respond to the climate emergency? Respondents: 211

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 53.50% 107 No 46.50% 93 Total 100% 211

If yes, what should it be?

Personal Information Quit being far left Limit car/ trucks going through New West or reroute them. Most of people commute through New West's busy street do not live in New West (Stewardson Way, Royal Ave...) Plant more big trees for next generation It’s all well and good to move forward with green ideas but I find that city bureaucracy causes more problems. We all like to save trees but you now have to put up ridiculous tree barriers that are made of single use materials that cannot be recycled. Amazingly the city is relocating the RECYCLING CENTER! Too far away from its citizens. And it forces owners of older homes to preserve horribly energy inefficient structures. Push on banning single use plastics city wide, push of reusable and recyclable materials, better education on recycling and composting as well as being more vigorous in imposing fines on persistent compost and recycling contamination More rooftop gardens to visit for residence, and visitors, more attractions for uptown like an eco- friendly biodiversity dome, and area for learning about our biodiversity on the west coast, similar to Queen Elizabeth bio-dome. Have plants that are native to the area, and some animals like butterflies, fish, and birds. Also an aquarium downtown, or uptown New Westminster would be cool. showing what animals are in and around the west coast and Fraser river. Street, and rain gardens to beautify uptown especially, and more planters around 6th and 8th street. Yes, how does the city plan to collect and analyze data to measure effectiveness of the Climate Emergency Bold Steps. Also, how is the city addressing vehicle congestion, and the pollution caused by vehicle congestion. Supporting mass transit. Traffic through the city is terrible. None of these initiatives address those issues. Sure they address removing citizens of New West from their cars or moving them to electric vehicles. However, the visitors and pass through traffic is quite large as we sit in the middle of the lower mainland. I would like to see how we can make more free flow from Burnaby through to Coquitlam,Patullo bridge and highway 1. With the new Patullo Bridge coming in I have high expectations for overall general road enhancements. Pets - big carbon footprint here with large park spaces reserved for dog parks. Pet licenses should come with additional eco and public space levies. You have missed how to balance sustainability with affordability. The City's "Shiny Things" budget is far far too expensive. You will cripple taxpayers and homeowners in this city. Shame! Is there any way to reduce or ban the use of single use plastics, similar to what Victoria has done? I am seeing too much plastic garbage (Ex. bags) laying around the city and would love to see that addressed. Of course, the Q2Q bridge.

Improve current City with well maintained products until carbon neutral can be installed

Quality People-Centred Public Realm needs to be explained in detail. Not sure at this time. Losing the local recycling facility is not a good idea and should be given reconsideration as getting into vehicles and driving further to dispose of recycling defeats the purpose of a climate strategy! Incentivize single family homes to install heat pumps, require low carbon building materials from developers and for city projects, improve bike parking requirements to support ebikes and cargo bikes. Reducing car traffic and providing detailed air monitoring so residents know the impact of vehicle pollution in our city. The city is not addressing how it will make it easier or beneficial for private business to make green changes. Very little actual impact from current plan, at a great expense. Want more impact? Analyze the cities supply chain and establish triple bottom line reporting as a criteria to win a city contract. That alone will have more impact than any of the proposed make work projects. Working with the rest of metro Vancouver to reduce the impact of commuters and industrial truck traffic going through New West. I would also like to see better emphasis placed on maintaining sidewalk accessibility during construction projects instead of so many sidewalk closures. Those types of things discourage walking and encourage car use. For the biodiversity initiative, I hope the money can be used for habitat restoration and protection along the Brunette. Stick to stuff that should should be able to do but aren’t -Recommend the City dedicate resources to establishing a complete and connected bicycle network as endorsed by Council in Master Transportation Plan (MTP). -A complete and connected bicycle network includes a safe and efficient bicycle connection from the Crosstown Greenway (on Seventh Avenue) to the Sixth Street entrance of the New Westminster Secondary School replacement and a Downtown-Uptown bike route (between the Waterfront and Tenth Avenue). -A complete and connected bicycle network also prioritizes completing gaps over bringing up existing bike routes to a gold-standard. -Recommend the City implement a review step for all transportation projects to ensure they align with the MTP. -Recommend the City prioritize sustainable transportation routes to schools and work with school staff to educate students on their existence and use. -Recommend the City begin a formal road space re-allocation process where existing public space primarily used for motor vehicles is re-assigned to be primarily used for sustainable transportation. -Recommend the city promote a volunteer based mental health oriented bike tour initiative to helps kids with anxiety and other disorders feel safe on bike routes and learn how to interact with them Protection of Queensborough in eventual flooding.

Stop investing in fossil fuels/pipelines with taxpayer funds. Input from the community - this survey is a one way 'push out' to the community. Let's hear what residents say then make a FAQ i.e. people say they want pollution free vehicles - then push for them NOT to buy big arse trucks etc. People want less traffic - then educate them - walk/bike to wherever they are going etc. etc. More ways to collect rain water and for this water to be saved for times of water restrictions for watering etc and more emergency water supply etc etc Recommend the City implement a review step for all transportation projects to ensure they align with the MTP. Recommend the City prioritize sustainable transportation routes to schools and work with school staff to educate students on their existence and use. Recommend the City begin a formal road space re-allocation process where existing public space primarily used for motor vehicles is re- assigned to be primarily used for sustainable transportation. you left out the "bold" part. A complete and connected pathway network throughout the heart of the city so people walking, using mobility scooters and other personal transportation devices (such as regular and electric skateboards), in-line skaters, bike riders and e-bike riders, can get around safely. Reduce paper and plastics in City facilities Climate adaptation should be the top priority in responding to the emergency and was not featured in any of the goals and is a huge shortcoming in this draft. Please redo the plan and have another survey after adaptation is included as this plan doesn’t do the issue justice unless there is massive adaptation for new Westminster to thrive over the coming decades. I appreciate desire to reduce car use and more ev use. However the city needs to ensure that major corridor traffic signals are coordinated particularly in non peak periods when congestion is not significant, but further ghg reductions can still be achieved (royal ave is a classic example). City should have a goal of reducing ghg by reducing congestion through better traffic management. Recycle Depot. Keep it center located in New West. Maybe work with NWSS school district for after old school building is torn down. Could be made into educational course for environmental causes. Students could intern to earn their volunteering hours. See previous comments. STOP SPENDING. enough already No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion Sort of 'yes' - just to ensure residents are inspired to respond to the climate emergency as individuals too. I wonder if as part of this - in accordance with the parks board, Council comes up with a rewilding strategy to enhance biodiversity within New West Cost to taxpayers? Our property taxes are already high. How much more are these measures going to cost us? Less packaging waste through encouraging retailers responsibility for packaging Community and corporate education on environmental and climate protection, which is absolutely vital to the success of the steps, seems mostly absent, and there seems to be almost no attention given to resilience and adaptation which, given the current trajectory of global emissions, would appear to be a fundamental oversight. Stop being climate activists as you offend citizens that don't believe in man made climate change, I thought we're all about inclusiveness, read up on Copernicus when scientific consensus was that planet was flat and it revolved around the sun. We can not change the climate by taxing ourselves into poverty. So try lowering taxes for once New vehicles are very efficient but how does the city stop hours of stop and go commuting traffic travelling though our city every day. Obviously the problem is greater during weekdays. Not the city’s mandate! Partner with all levels of government ! City council has lost touch with the taxpayers ! If you have a family, a job, pay taxes , the city treats you as terrible citizens. Need more and specific bold action towards getting people out of their cars. More roadway reallocation to alternative modes, bike share, AAA cycling network, safe cycling connections to all schools (pub & priv), road pricing, etc. Pedestrian only streets I see no mention of the thousands of vehicles that use New Westminster as a drive through city. What about the use of the Fraser River for transportation and goods movements? Overdevelopment. Overpopulation causes increases to all problems with the climate emergency. People need to drive, transit is not always viable ( skytrain to surrey for example is very dangerous and takes 2x the amount of time to commute by car) bikes are not viable for many here with walkers or problems walking. Too much development is going to be the runation of the incredible city by a city council that hates our own history Give us back a recycling depot. solid waste management and waste diversion Reverse your decision about the recycling depot. I have NEVER seen a issue unite city residents like this topic. It makes NO SENSE that the City has the 7 steps and cancels the depot. In a climate emergency, saving costs should not be the driver for decision making. Council made a mistake and they know it. Now fix it. Consider the grade when creating walking paths. Regardless on how much is spent, some paths will be too steep for many people. We should also advocate for a car insurance structure based on kms driven not an flat annual rate. Seriously improve transit with dedicated city lanes. Let’s give transit true priority. Forgive me if these have been covered & I missed them: 1) Like Burnaby is doing: protection against sea level rise & flooding from Fraser River. 2) Food security - promote growing food plants on city & private property; 3) Programs to promote alternative energy collection on private property (ie using large scale power of city to purchase solar or wind & bring down cost & encourage residents to install alternative energy collectors on private private property. 4) Bi-laws making alternative energy & energy efficiency mandatory for new construction. Encouraging such upgrades in older homes. 5) Bi-laws restricting single-use plastics for shopping bags, fast-food containers, straws, etc. 6) In general, it’s really great to see the city preparing to take action. If these initiatives could be expanded to help residents also make their homes & vehicles more energy efficient & ‘green’, this would be even more powerful action. Has flood control been reviewed to deal with increased water in the Fraser and low areas of the city? RECYCLING CENTRE!!!!!!!! How can any green plan involve closing our recycling centre & forcing more traffic to another municipality?! Riverfront planning - will we need to dyke the boardwalk in the future? Getting a sense of realistic time lines for change. (Certainly not in the next 5 years, but when will rising sea levels become an issue?) New Westminster is a major hub for the movement of goods by train, which includes a significant amount of crude oil. The city of New Westminster should adopt a policy of advocating for the construction of the TMX pipeline to ensure that crude oil passing near us is being done as safely and efficiently as possible, while minimizing potential impacts to the environment. Advocating against this project only leads to increased oil by rail shipments through New Westminster and along/ over the Fraser. Let's become realistic with our climate plan and ensure we are fulfilling our current needs, while planning for the future. Waste based regulations. Single use plastic bans, improved communication about recycling options, bylaws requiring businesses to recycle, but most importantly, to reduce consumption. do nothing How can you call goals steps, steps indicate you have a plan to get there, this is a wish list to justify a tax increase. How much of this is going to go into general revenues and how much will be used to offset already planned work? They're all very important goals to me. I wonder if there has been any thought to partner with adjoining municipalities to optimize achieving these bold goals. Any municipality that may want to partner with New Westminster to work towards achieving their goals, assuming that they have climate emergency response goals, could be invited to collaborate on achieving some of these goals. As taxpayers we need to see cost/ enefit analysis for all these initiatives. The true cost to the City taxpayer. Do you even know what this will cost the average citizen? Electrical rates going up while a increase in demand on existing infrastructure while sucking the Utility dry of it's reserves. How are we going to re-fit the apartment buildings that already exist? For example, I live in an apartment in Victoria Hill. There is nowhere in the parking lot to charge an electric vehicle. Less reliance on electricity generated from dams and other destructive means. Less reliance on lithium. Encourage people to stop using dishwashers and clothes dryers. Waste less water: beer- making is shockingly wasteful, stop promoting the industry. carbon free for new buildings yes. Replace existing buildings as their lifespan expires. Retrofits are too expensive. Cars an essential way of life in Vancouver -- over time more people will use electric cars etc when they become more affordable. Carbon free homes -- sure for possible new construction; again to expensive for older homes. Trees are great, but let the homeowner plant their own. Bottom line is the bottom line .... spend, spend, spend. Taxpayers are already maxed out. Try to be more thoughtful with current budgets and do the miraculous. You will be better supported with such initiatives but at least trying to work harder and more efficiently with our tax dollars. We do NOT have a climate emergency. Check how much Co2 and other pollutants that volcanoes spew. I am appalled at our council's virtue signalling. How about going to China and India to protest their pollution levels? We just need to respect our environment. Encourage conversion from Natural Gas to Electricity, e.g put levies on gas not electrical Stop this nonsense make work project. Improve transit to make transit a better alternative than driving. Work with the other municipalities to build as much transit for the dollar as possible instead of expensive skytrain expansion - all that concrete creates a huge carbon footprint! New Westminster is a commuting city. We have many individuals that travel through the City daily as part of their commute, and very often as part of work. Dissuading, taxing, or otherwise restricting travel of large, diesel powered trucks would reduce noise pollution, CO2 emissions, hazardous, road wear, and any number of other problems associated with large vehicles. Recycling depot ): Plant-based food initiatives? Putting the New Westminster Tax Payers ahead of Corporations is more important. It seems most of the things seem to benefit companies but not necessarily residents pocket book. Whereas we are in a Climate Emergency, the responses should help people make changes not just cost them money without any ascertainable advantage to the average tax payer. We don't all live in Uptown or near a skytrain station. The goals for a car light community are short sighted. What about the rest of us who live on the periphery? Transit infrastructure within NW does not support those of us working outside of NW. Who is going to pay for all these plans? What is going to happen to our electricity bills or the infrastructure of the grid to meet these goals? I don't want to pay to replace my natural gas appliances. I want green space at my own. I need more help to eliminate the chaffer beetle. I don't want more trees if I don't have green space to enjoy the trees. Stop spending money! There is a huge environmental impact from projects, construction etc. Let's use what we have got a little longer! Expropriation of high-rise/condo building that are being used as tax havens for the wealthy but not allowed to be occupied by real people. We don't need to build or expand more, we just need to redistribute. Encourage new builds, in particular condo's to have green roofs. Ensure a recycling depot is situated in our city. Not having a recycling depot in a municipality like New Westminster is an embarrassment and shows that development is more important than climate. Shame. Addressing the fact that much NW pollution comes from commenter cars from other municipalities driving through NW. How can NW move to tax those cars? Support transit? Work with other municipalities and levels of government? More about rec/school programs, climate action department and research/innovation I think these are great steps but I wish the city could go further faster. Some of these seem like they will take so long to implement and make a difference. Developing the urban forest for example is something we could do quite quickly if we wanted to. I realize it's a balancing of priorities but you have my support to go all in on this. Employers’ leading with employee public transit passes Reduce parking by 50%. Reduce speed limits and install raised sidewalk to further disincentivise driving. Make all parking, on all streets, pay parking. Push for tolling the new Pattulo bridge. Waste Diversion from Landfill. There needs to be a Waste Diversion Strategy. Residents need user friendly access to participate the landfill reduction. This should be a priority in the Climate Emergency Bold Steps. Residents need a permanent access point to drop off their recyclables. We can always just raise taxes, so what does it matter? I am assuming that the city derives some of its revenue through the existence and taxation of businesses that cause unnecessary consumption (eg the Amazon warehouse, retail stores, etc). The city should consider whether the existence of these businesses within the city hampers the city's goals. Single use plastic bans, aggressively limiting pollution created by industries operating in New West, reducing dependence on animal agriculture, and reducing food waste, supporting low-impact small businesses, improving walkable accessibility to most common needs for people in all communities. Budget Constraint Residents can only shoulder so much of these expenditures before they literally "tap out" Its great to have all the plans in the world, but unless New Westminster does something to stop emptying the bank accounts of its residents there will be no one that wants to live here. I was recently shocked to speak with some of the folks in my neighborhood and found out that many long term residents have started to defer their property taxes because they simply cant afford them anymore. Every $ that is planned and spent comes out of the residents pockets and it is unbelievably disrespectful to spend beyond the means of the population. It's time to show some constraint Reducing land covered in concrete. Encouraging Single family homes to have a larger percentage of water permeable land. Most new homes cover have very little water permeable land and this puts extra strain on storm drains. If extreme weather events are ti be expected we need more water permeable land. Improve the recycling program from recycling containers at Transit stops and other high-traffic places right through to the collection and processing of recyclable materials. The extra cost, or perhaps perhaps short-term cost can be balanced with charging premiums in areas where too much garbage is produced. Also promote products in the city that use recyclable materials for packaging Etc, and charge a premium or tariff on products which use non-reusable Plastics and other products and packaging that are detrimental to ongoing climate action. Plan for advocacy to all levels of senior provincial,national, international government, support protest marches, meetings,sit-ins, etc...... ongoing daily reminders to the world that we need to prepare for mitigation and a climate refugee crisis. we need a recycling depot or pickup in new west - this is a basic service that should be a priority for the city. Most people will not be able to use the coquitlam station and our garbage will increase. Encourage more recycling. “Climate” needs to consider broader activities include human activities, commerce, etc. and what are the most impactful and best value projects to be undertaken for largest impact. Waste disposal, use of plastics, electric bikes, heat pumps in place of furnaces and AC units, passive housing, Not enough public consultation takes place before implementation especially by using electronic surveys like this. What the actual cost will be to our residents, how big of a difference will this make . The facts on the gains and not the up front gains but total gains over the lifetime. That all new development public and private should adhere to these guidelines and goals. Promoting healthier diets steering away from meat and getting rid of disposable products. Support the residents with rebates or lower taxes to purchase green saving products, ie. cars, solar, heat pumps, wind power etc. Public transit options for New Westminster as transitions are made to be more "green"

This is a very costly and very little benefit compared to Large pollution from China, India, etc. 1. Parents should not be driving gr6 or older kids to school 2. Discourage consumerism. Encourage re-use 3. Do something about the gridlock ( i.e idling and pollution) on main NW arteries Land-use and how density (residential, commercial, jobs) impacts carbon emissions. All areas of the city need to be walkable, and allow for easy transit, walking, and rolling. Ban plastics Now the "car light community" is not something we can impose. we are a commuter city with many cars traveling through daily. We need to be wise in how we accommodate this traffic and I do not think we can sell this idea. It is not an option for many people to be a car-light city. Ensure that new condo builds are not being built to use twice as much energy as older builds! Contribute more to amenities that will benefit the entire community, not just their buildings. Ask youth in the community what would make better outdoor space for them! Where is money from? Increase tax while politicians get more pay. Actual tangible, measurable goals and objectives. Many of these are capital spending that would have occurred without a climate emergency. What is the city going to do address water shortages, extreme weather events, how is the city going to buffer against rising Fraser river levels and increased freshet..... how is the city planning to address shifting biogeoclimatic zones.... climate change has happened, this plan does not address adaptation to the change A recycling facility in the city that is conveniently located. Current plan is a terrible decision.

Participate in and contribute to neighbor community carbon reduction projects/assets. collection of compostable kitchen garbage should be happening in all condos and multiple dwellings. Engagement of all residents should be a major focus of communications. Impossible to own an EV here as there are few facilities for charging. It should be supported through incentives for all dwellings. It does not address the energy inefficiencies of thousands of residencies in New West. I highly recommend that the City prioritize sustainable transportation routes to schools and work with school staff to educate students on their existence and use. Also it is desirable that the City begin a formal road space re-allocation process where existing public space primarily used for motor vehicles is re-assigned to be primarily used for sustainable transportation. Integrated transit-oriented development atop/around/inside lightly developed skytrain stations (i.e. Columbia, 22ndSt, Braid). This would require negotiating with Translink to initiate Hong Kong style integrated developments at Skytrain stations that feature: affordable housing; community facilities (libraries, pools, gyms) and small business opportunities. These are important; of course some have been missed. More public input. I'm unsure how one electrifies the community. Public forums, scrapping our present form of politics which is seen as adversarial rather than constructive. We are part of this Earth, our home. We are not the most important species, perhaps we need to take off our myopic lenses. I applaud your initiatives and hope this is a toe into the water before a deep dive. This is probably in your list somewhere but I missed it. It is very difficult for people with electric cars. Not very many charging stations in New West. I think the city should have a good system of recharging stations all over. You could partner with a for-profit company. That would be fine. We have opportunities to sequester carbon, eg. burying biochar, weathering olivine rocks in the river, etc. {Promote and educate active sustainable modes of transportation to everyone, especially children and students as this would reduce the number of vehicles on the roads and reduce their carbon footprint and pollution. E-bikes are the wave of the future and a solution to the hills in New West, a true carbon free and pollution free vehicle and promotes a car light community. More mobility lanes/routes must be built to allow for the booming of active sustainable transportation usage that is happening. Reduce overreach. Layoff expensive staff and concentrate on core services. How about mini Recycling Depots at all city facilities? Really serve the community, not just the 'woke' political hacks. measures to support transit, funding for bus lanes, bus advanced signals. Where will all the money come from to meet these Bold Steps?? implementing an additional carbon tax on larger businesses in New West would be a good way to get a larger budget to work on green initiatives. As well, supporting zero waste businesses and ideas would be a step towards more consumer sustainability.

17) Is there any additional information that you feel would allow you to better participate in the City’s budget process? Respondents: 58

17) Is there any additional information that you feel would allow you to better participate in the City’s budget process? Don’t waste our money on your green religion. You will not change anything. We have a sizable population on fixed incomes and the cost of living is outpacing them. I'm concerned about the cost of some new fees related to carbon pricing, hydro levies, etc. What can the city do to soften the blow or make allowances for our most vulnerable members of the community? PS - Question 18 only allows me to choose one, not all that apply. I would like to see a total cost and the taxation plan required to meet a five year plan.

Improve traffic passing through this City. Those of us who LIVE here deserve better during rush hour A view of last years capital budget / previous years by category versus planned budget to better understand spending history vs planned. And of view of how that spending impacts tax increases. Would also like to understand what the city is doing to cut costs and be more operationally effective, improving ROI etc. A cycling management plan will become necessary to help eliminate conflict between drivers and cyclists. Its a huge problem in Vancouver. New West could learn from that to create a better system. nothing Year over year financials It would be good to know what amount of GHG reductions these different steps are expected to produce or whether there are other choices out there that were rejected and why. Is there a text service we can subscribe to to remind us of upcoming open houses or a google calendar we can subscribe to? More details on each project I guess but we voted this council in so I guess we have to trust them to make the right decisions. Car-Free Columbia street should be a priority. Recommend the City implement a review step for all transportation projects to ensure they align with the MTP. Recommend the City prioritize sustainable transportation routes to schools and work with school staff to educate students on their existence and use. Recommend the City begin a formal road space re-allocation process where existing public space primarily used for motor vehicles is re-assigned to be primarily used for sustainable transportation. Throughout the coming years, report out on SMART goals so people can see projects are measurable, attainable, realistic and time-based. Publish deadlines. What is the impact on property taxes? What is the projected increase? How much debt? More social media updates on this important topic. This was a good survey but there needs to be periodic social media updates to build awareness and get community input and engagement on this important topic. When planning cycling projects, work with HUB New West directly. To get a direct insider view on how it will be received to best effect. No new spending please I do have an opinion. I believe you should concentrate on ways to reduce spending and reduce taxes. This type of survey and having staff to review and support it is a waste of taxpayers money, in my opinion No Any kind of information on how the city will be applying the costs of carbon in the decision making process to ensure that investments are those that provide the greatest climate action benefits would be very beneficial. At present, there is no way to determine if the proposed measures provide good value for the money invested and will actually result in the city's GHG targets being met. Yes, please include cost of everything project. Mayor should have weekly open meetings so he has to hear from real people with real jobs . Quit hiding with on line communications. Listen to people not just your friends on social media. yes - is this proposal possible by reallocating existing funds and if so, from what to what in terms of priority, and if it is not from reallocating funds, then how much additional revenue needs to be generated. Last, what timelines are being discussed. is this for 3 years remaining for the current city council or is this a 10 year plan. which is the top priority. last, it is nice to have some science support these decisions to reference why the city believes these bold steps are the most critical or appropriate for new west specifically - ie because of our population, or bioclimatic zone, or other. I also think flood management is missing. Listen to resident petitions and letters to the editor in the New West Record about the depot. There is a lot of spin in here. Perhaps showing the incremental cost of your green measures over alternatives would truly be full disclosure. The issues of affordability should also be a component of the process. The debt load will have to be serviced in the future. This should be factored into the discussion. It would be good to learn more about the provincial strategies in the planning. How well and how do the energy making technologies work. No Information posted @transit stations, shopping centres, public libraries, etc. in addition to real information posted on the city website & in the NewWest Record -- the link printed in the paper didn't work. I had to find it on thd City website. we are so small to do anything its not fair to use public money for any of this Id like to know that this isn’t just a marketing exercise by the city, as with so much else I get the impression you’ve already decided on all of this. This seems to be one sided, i.e. focused on the 7 bold steps. I don't think that every stakeholder in new westminster is focused on the 7 bold steps yet there doesn't seem to be mention of other areas of concern. What about affordability for the residents? What about the frequency/consistency and quality of maintenance of already existing infrastructure? What about the the conditions in which City staff work in? I believe things like these need to be addressed too and not pushed to the back just to accommodate a buzz around environmental strategies. This will push out of this City long standing residents just so some small number of individuals can be satisfied. I would suggest that before presenting a targeted campaign, the City engage all stakeholders and determine what is important. This campaign (7 bold steps) is targeted and leaves no room for input, except to agree with it. Nil

More detailed analysis and information. I found that the breakdown of budget information was not granular enough. I believe the city would be well served by having some engaged citizens step through budgeted items on a line item by line item basis vs. large lump sums that become more meaningless as one can not understand the underlying cost drivers. Also discuss the interplay with the operational budget and other implications. I must review the City's Bold Steps in more detail. There is never any mention how you minimize the impact to tax payers. It is always about spending more and more and more; whether it is for climate initiatives or other projects. Why not take the BOLD step of staying within the current budget, with only a tax increase linked to inflation. A few years ago, you already realized a huge property tax revenue increase from many in New West of 30% or more. Where are those funds today? Is it not about time you thought about those very homeowners that fund everything? Make this about the budget, NOT a useless initiative that was rushed in to mask the needs due to neglected maintenance. Stop spending money. Spending in this city is out of control! Start the process early enough so that survey information can have an impact on the actual budget. At this point it's unlikely this feedback will have a substantial effect on the what will happen. Better communication Historical info summarized - Please schedule meetings at a time/date that is more suitable to the public (perhaps on weekends) - Most people are at work (or are on their way home from work) when these meetings take place - I'd like to attend these meetings, but without any changes, surveys are the only viable option Residents need to know that data on the recycling depot about the amount of items diverted and collected annually. This is essential and important data. Asking if we think of a idea supports the idea you put forward is an insult. This survey is a joke. In the info about adding to the urban forest, it says increasing it to 27%. How much land does it currently cover? Introduce an annual budget survey to incorporate feedback on other budgetary items in advance of deciding what themes to allocate. Let the budget belong to the residents, where we have a say rather than simply providing feedback on already agreed upon directions. I would just encourage ongoing communication and various types of Engagement with people around this topic. I think 2019 is a year where climate change and environmental sustainability are becoming front of mine for more people, but I think there's a lot more still to do and I applied New Westminster for taking a lead role, but I think it needs to go beyond the city changing, but also the citizens changing with the cities help. Budget for the new Recycling Depot. More detail and publicity of the assessment report detailing the worst carbon offenders, how these steps address those and what the net impact will be. It is not clear how much our taxes will need to increase to do these steps. Some could be done under capital replacement. A a taxpayer-homeowner, my concern is the amount of debt the city has incurred. I feel we are overtaxed when it comes to property taxes.The city needs to look at ways to save money and live with in their means. I do not use more services than a condo owner yet pay more. My most used service is the recycling depot which is being taken away. As a person who does not own a car I will being using my garbage bin for recycling. How green is that? Are we providing green vehicles for employees that drive their environmentally unfriendly car to work? Maybe they should pay for parking. It's great to be green but I am completely taxed out. When I tell my friends how much my property taxed are they are shocked. Make sure our voices count, far to many times council ignores our voices. ie. the recycling depot at the Canadian games pool area. There was a large number of people opposed to closing it but it was ignored the space will be used for car access and parking. Not very green to me. Don’t know enough to say We should aim to reduce the budget significantly by reducing the scope of the city’s activities. We a really the 2nd highest taxation area in B.C. behind West Vancouver, they may be able to afford it but we can’t This survey was poorly designed. Adopt user pay policy for Queensborough ferry.

18) How do you prefer to engage on the budget process? Select all that apply. Respondents: 217

Choice Percentage Count

Complete online survey 94.47% 205 Attend open houses 47.47% 103 Attend workshops 36.41% 79 Participate in a webinar 18.43% 40 Provide feedback directly at Council 19.82% 43 meeting Other 6.91% 15 Total 100% 217

Other

Personal Information about it to my neighbors Mobile apps Mayor & Council out into the community

Social media Have council attend workshops with taxpayers More open internet access Council needs to respect the residents opinions. Instead of blocking caring constituents from FB, respond to their concerns or complaints. J. Cote needs to listen to all citizens, not just the new residents just moving here I’d like to participate in a way that would actually have an impact, this looks to be the standard ‘consultation’ when you’ve already decided what you are going to do. email communication

All or some of the above

Start mailing this information to every single home. This survey during holidays, year end is a scam. direct voting work in Vancouver so not home in New West for any open houses or workshops .

I would like to be on a committee after the ACTBiped committee is dissolved

Please take a moment to help us understand a bit more about you. We only ask these questions to help understand whether or not this survey has reached the diverse community that we serve. 19) What is your age? Respondents: 219

Choice Percentage Count

19 and under 1.83% 4 20 - 34 13.70% 30 35 - 49 40.64% 89 50 - 64 31.51% 69 65 and older 12.33% 27 Total 100% 219

20) Describe your household Respondents: 220

Choice Percentage Count

Single person 11.82% 26 Couple 34.55% 76 Roommates 1.82% 4 Family with kids 41.36% 91 Retired couple 5.00% 11 Retired single person 1.82% 4 Other 3.64% 8 Total 100% 220

Other Couple with adult child married couple with elderly parent retired with adult family also Single with senior family member Couple with adult relative Gender Fluid Not necessary couple - one retired and one still working

21) What are your connections to the city? Select all that apply. Respondents: 223

Choice Percentage Count

Renter 17.49% 39 Home owner 79.37% 177 Student 4.48% 10 Employee 10.76% 24 Business owner 4.93% 11 Total 100% 223

22) How would you describe your gender? Respondents: 218

Choice Percentage Count

Female 39.45% 86 Male 48.17% 105 Non Binary 1.83% 4 Prefer to self describe 1.83% 4 Prefer not to say 8.72% 19 Total 100% 218

Prefer to self describe Not relevant to my opinion Gender fluid normal human human

23) What is your ethnicity? (select all that apply) Respondents: 217

Choice Percentage Count

Aboriginal/First Nations 2.76% 6 East Asian (including Chinese, Korean, 4.61% 10 and Japanese) Eastern European 13.82% 30 Western European 53.92% 117 Latin American 0.92% 2 Middle Eastern 0.00% 0 South Asian (including Indian) 2.30% 5 Southeast Asian (including Filipino) 0.46% 1 African 1.38% 3 Prefer not to say 17.97% 39 Other 16.13% 35 Total 100% 217

Other

Canadian Canadian Who cares. Canadian

Canadian. How is this not an option?? Canadian

Canadian American/Canadian duel citizen

Mennonite

Canadian Canadian How you dare to ask this question . Racial profiling! Shame on you mayor Cote! Canadian

Canadian born in New Westminster Not relavent

Acadian

Caucasian Canadian

Canadian Canadian

British Columbian

Born in Canada. Father born in Canada. Mother born in South America. Canadian Mixed Canadian Canadian Canadian

BC born multiethnic Canadian Canadian Northern European Canadian

Canadian by birth

Acadian

24) Do you identify as a person with a disability? Respondents: 216

Choice Percentage Count

Yes 7.87% 17 No 92.13% 199 Total 100% 216

Please share any additional information. Mental illness. Depression and Anxiety Mental Illness I also volunteer in the city. small pension

Osteoarthritis in knees. Mobility issues Non visible one I am low-income. I am a parent of a child with a disability

25) What is the primary language spoken in your home? (select all that apply) Respondents: 217

Choice Percentage Count

English 95.85% 208 French 3.23% 7 Punjabi 0.92% 2 Filipino 0.92% 2 Cantonese 0.46% 1 Mandarin 0.92% 2 Korean 0.00% 0 Spanish 0.92% 2 Romanian 0.46% 1 Russian 0.46% 1 Other 2.76% 6 Total 100% 217

Other Vietnamese Japanese Polish Shame on you for asking this question. This is Canada. Official languages are English & French

N/A

26) Where do you live? Respondents: 218

Choice Percentage Count

Sapperton 14.22% 31 Massey Victory Heights 5.05% 11 Victoria Hill & Ginger Drive 4.13% 9 Glenbrooke North 11.01% 24 Queen's Park 7.80% 17 Moody Park 6.88% 15 Brow of the Hill 11.93% 26 West End 6.42% 14 Connaught Heights 0.92% 2 Downtown / Quayside 21.10% 46 Queensborough 4.13% 9 Not in New Westminster 2.75% 6 Prefer not to say 3.67% 8 Total 100% 218